Modular hydrocarbon facility placement planning system

ABSTRACT

A method for identifying locations for components of a hydrocarbon production facility may involve receiving, via a processor, input data having one or more maps representative of an area, a plurality of sets of coordinates for a plurality of wells, and cost data associated with at least one of the plurality of components. The method may also involve determining a set of candidate components that corresponds to the plurality of locations based on the input data and an optimization algorithm and determining additional sets of candidate components that correspond to the plurality of locations based on the input data, the set of candidate locations, and the optimization algorithm. The method may then include generating one or more additional maps indicative of the plurality of locations for the plurality of components based on at least one of the one or more additional sets of candidate components.

CROSS REFERENCE PARAGRAPH

This application is a continuation application of pending PCTApplication No. PCT/US2021/070795, filed on Jun. 30, 2021, which claimsthe benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/705,502, entitled“MODULAR APPROACH FOR OPTIMAL PIPELINE PLANNING,” filed Jun. 30, 2020,and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/200,256, entitled “MODULARHYDROCARBON FACILITY PLACEMENT PLANNING SYSTEM,” filed Feb. 24, 2021.The contents of the disclosures are hereby incorporated herein byreference.

BACKGROUND

This disclosure relates generally to automated planning and placement ofhydrocarbon, wells facilities, and piping.

As hydrocarbons are extracted from hydrocarbon reservoirs viahydrocarbon wells in oil and/or gas fields, the extracted hydrocarbonsmay be transported to various types of equipment, tanks, processingfacilities, and the like via transport vehicles, a network of pipelines,and the like. For example, the hydrocarbons may be extracted from thereservoirs via the hydrocarbon wells and may then be transported, viathe network of pipelines, from the wells to various processing stationsthat may perform various phases of hydrocarbon processing to make theproduced hydrocarbons available for use or transport.

Automated planning techniques for identifying suitable locations andplacements for components used for hydrocarbon extraction, processing,and distribution operations may involve a significant amount ofprocessing power and hardware to efficiently determine suitablelocations for various components in view of geographical considerations,cost considerations, and the like. That is, systems for determiningsuitable locations for components of a hydrocarbon operation may takedays to process the relevant information and identify suitablesolutions. Moreover, these systems may identify suitable locations for alimited number of components (e.g., 10-20 wells, drill centers,gathering centers, and/or central processing centers) that make up thehydrocarbon operation. The delay and limited number of componentsanalyzed in determining the suitable locations may result in delayedoperations, higher costs, and reduced efficiencies in processes relatedto hydrocarbon extraction and processing.

This section is intended to introduce the reader to various aspects ofart that may be related to various aspects of the present techniques,which are described and/or claimed below. This discussion is believed tobe helpful in providing the reader with background information tofacilitate a better understanding of the various aspects of thisdisclosure. Accordingly, it should be understood that these statementsare to be read in this light, and not as admissions of prior art.

SUMMARY

A summary of certain embodiments disclosed herein is set forth below. Itshould be understood that these aspects are presented merely to providethe reader with a brief summary of these certain embodiments and thatthese aspects are not intended to limit the scope of this disclosure.Indeed, this disclosure may encompass a variety of aspects that may notbe set forth below.

In a first embodiment, a method for determining a layout for ahydrocarbon production site may include receiving, via a processor,input data including geological data associated with an area, acomputational resource parameter, and an indication of a set ofcomponents to be placed in the layout. The set of components may includeone or more wells, two or more facilities, one or more pipelines betweenthe facilities, and one or more well trajectories between the wells andat least one of the facilities. The method may also include selecting,via the processor, one of a set of planning scenarios to implement indetermining the layout based on the computational resource parameter.Additionally, the method may include, in response to selecting one ofthe planning scenarios, determining a set of well placements for thewells based on a first algorithm and the geological data. The method mayalso include simultaneously determining a set of facility placements forthe facilities, a set of well trajectories for the wells, and a set ofpipeline placements for the pipelines based on a second algorithm. Theset of pipeline placements may identify a path between the facilitiesbased on a third algorithm and a graphical topology of the geologicaldata weighted by costs associated with placing the pipelines atrespective portions of the area.

In some embodiments, the first algorithm may include the secondalgorithm as an inner iterative loop.

In some embodiments, the computational resource parameter may include auser set threshold time limit in which completion of the layoutdetermination is requested.

In some embodiments, the computational resource parameter may include auser preference indicating a priority between a computation efficiencyassociated with determining the layout and an accuracy of optimizationof the layout.

In some embodiments, the method may include, in response to selecting asecond planning scenario of the set of planning scenarios, determiningthe set of well placements for the one or more wells based on the firstalgorithm and the geological data. Additionally, in response toselecting the second planning scenario, the method may includesimultaneously determining the set of facility placements for thefacilities and a set of pipeline placements for the pipelines based onthe second algorithm. Additionally, independently from the simultaneousdetermining, the method may include determining the set of welltrajectories for the wells based on a fourth algorithm.

In some embodiments, the fourth algorithm may include a particle swarmoptimization algorithm configured to penalize dog-leg severity having avalue greater than a threshold amount.

In some embodiments, the first algorithm and the second algorithm mayinclude first and second particle swarm optimization algorithms,respectively.

In some embodiments, the third algorithm may be an A* algorithm.

In a second embodiment, a method for determining pipeline placement forone or more pipelines between two or more facilities may includereceiving, via a processor, input data such as topological dataassociated with an area and cost data associated with the pipelineplacement in respective portions of the area. The method may alsoinclude determining, via the processor, a path between the facilitiesbased on a first algorithm and the topological data augmented by thecost data. Additionally, the method may include determining, via theprocessor, a set of pipeline placements for the pipelines based on thepath.

In some embodiments, determining the set of pipeline placements mayinclude simultaneously determining the set of pipeline placements and aset of facility placements for the facilities based on a secondalgorithm.

In some embodiments, determining the set of pipeline placements mayinclude simultaneously determining a set of facility placements for thefacilities, a set of well trajectories for one or more wells, and theset of pipeline placements for the pipelines based on a secondalgorithm.

In some embodiments, the second algorithm may include a particle swarmoptimization algorithm.

In some embodiments, the method may include determining, independent ofthe simultaneous determining, a set of well placements for one or morewells via a third algorithm.

In some embodiments, the method may include transforming a map acquiredvia the topological data to a cost graph based on the cost data.

In some embodiments, determining the path between the facilities isbased on an A* algorithm applied to the cost graph.

In a third embodiment, a method for determining a layout for ahydrocarbon production site may include receiving, via a processor,input data such as geological data associated with an area and anindication of a set of components to be placed in the layout. The set ofcomponents may include two or more facilities and one or more pipelinesbetween the two or more facilities. Additionally, the method may includesimultaneously determining a set of facility placements for thefacilities and a set of pipeline placements for the pipelines based onthe geological data, the indication of the set of components, and afirst algorithm.

In some embodiments, simultaneously determining the set of facilityplacements and the set of pipeline placements may include iterativelydetermining a set of candidate pipeline placements based on thegeological data and a second algorithm within an iterative loop of thefirst algorithm.

In some embodiments, determining the set of pipeline placements mayinclude determining a shortest path between the facilities based on thesecond algorithm and a graphical topology of the geological dataweighted by costs associated with placing the pipelines at respectiveportions of the area.

In some embodiments, simultaneously determining the set of facilityplacements and the set of pipeline placements may include simultaneouslydetermining a set of well placements for one or more wells, a set offacility placements for the facilities, a set of well trajectoriesbetween the wells and at least one of the facilities, and a set ofpipeline placements for the pipelines between the facilities based onthe first algorithm.

In some embodiments, the method may include rectifying, during the firstalgorithm, an unfeasible candidate well trajectory of a well by changinga drilling center associated with the well or rotating the well.

In a fourth embodiment, a method for determining a layout for ahydrocarbon production site may include receiving, via a processor,input data such as geological data associated with an area, anindication of a set of components to be placed in the layout. The set ofcomponents may include one or more wells, two or more facilities, one ormore pipelines between the facilities, and one or more well trajectoriesbetween the wells and at least one of the facilities. The method mayalso include simultaneously determining a set of facility placements forthe facilities, a set of well trajectories for the wells, a set ofpipeline placements for the pipelines, and a set of well placements forthe wells based on the geological data and a first algorithm havingnested iterative loops.

In some embodiments, determining the set of pipeline placements mayinclude determining a shortest path between the facilities based on asecond algorithm and a graphical topology of the geological dataweighted by costs associated with placing the pipelines at respectiveportions of the area.

In some embodiments, the input data may include at least one fixed wellplacement.

In some embodiments, the method may include selecting, via theprocessor, one of a set of planning scenarios to implement indetermining the layout based on a computational resource parameterspecified in the input data. The computational resource parameter may beindicative of a priority between a computation efficiency associatedwith determining the layout and an accuracy of optimization of thelayout.

In a fifth embodiment, a method for identifying a plurality of locationsfor a plurality of components of a hydrocarbon production facility mayinvolve receiving, via a processor, input data having one or more mapsrepresentative of an area, a plurality of sets of coordinates for aplurality of wells, and cost data associated with at least one of theplurality of components. The method may also involve determining a setof candidate components that corresponds to the plurality of locationsbased on the input data and a first algorithm and determining one ormore additional sets of candidate components that correspond to theplurality of locations based on the input data, the set of candidatelocations, and the first algorithm. The method may then includegenerating one or more additional maps indicative of the plurality oflocations for the plurality of components based on at least one of theone or more additional sets of candidate components.

In some embodiments, the input data may include a set of physical layersassociated with the area, logical layer data representative of a set oflogical layers associated with different operations performed by thehydrocarbon production site, one or more prohibited areas within thearea, or any combination thereof.

In some embodiments, determining the set of candidate components mayinclude identifying a first set of locations for a first set ofcandidate components associated with the plurality of locations withinat least two portions of the plurality of logical layers based on thefirst algorithm, which may be a particle swarm optimization algorithm.Determining the set of candidate components may also include grouping afirst portion of the first set of candidate components based on one ormore distances between two or more candidate components of the firstportion of the first set of candidate components and determining anupdated first set of locations based on the first portion of the firstset of candidate components and capacity data associated with the firstset of candidate components. Additionally, determining the set ofcandidate components may include determining a first total cost forbuilding the hydrocarbon production site based on the updated first setof locations, connection cost data associated with providing fluidconnections between at least some components of the first portion of thefirst set of candidate components.

In some embodiments, determining the one or more additional sets ofcandidate components may include identifying a second set of locationsfor a second set of candidate components associated with the pluralityof locations based on the input data, the particle swarm optimizationalgorithm, and the updated first set of locations. Determining the setof candidate components may also include grouping a second portion ofthe second set of candidate components based on one or more additionaldistances between two or more additional candidate components of thesecond portion of the second set of candidate components. Additionally,determining the set of candidate components may also include determiningan updated second set of locations based on the second portion of thesecond set of candidate components and additional capacity dataassociated with the second set of candidate components, and determininga second total cost for building the hydrocarbon production site basedon the updated second set of locations, additional connection cost dataassociated with providing additional fluid connections between at leastsome components of the second portion of the second set of candidatecomponents.

In some embodiments, the method may include determining, via theprocessor, a set of candidate well placements based on the input dataand a second algorithm, and determining, via the processor, one or moreadditional sets of candidate well placements based on the input data,the set of candidate well placements, and the second algorithm.Additionally, the method may include generating, via the processor, theplurality of sets of coordinates based on the one or more additionalsets of candidate well placements.

In some embodiments, the method may include determining, via theprocessor, a second set of candidate components that corresponds to aplurality of well trajectories based on the input data and a secondalgorithm. The method may also include determining, via the processor,one or more second additional sets of candidate components thatcorrespond to the plurality of well trajectories based on the inputdata, the second set of candidate components, and the second algorithm.Additionally, the method may include generating, via the processor, theplurality of well trajectories based on the one or more secondadditional sets of candidate components.

In some embodiments, determining the set of candidate components mayinclude simultaneously determining a set of candidate facilityplacements and a set of candidate pipeline routes between at least twoof the set of candidate facility placements.

In some embodiments, determining the set of candidate components mayinclude simultaneously determining a set of candidate facilityplacements, a set of candidate pipeline routes between at least two ofthe set of candidate facility placements, and a set of well trajectoriesbetween the plurality of sets of coordinates for the plurality of wellsand the set of candidate facility placements.

In some embodiments, determining the set of candidate components mayinclude simultaneously determining a set of candidate well placements, aset of candidate facility placements, a set of candidate pipeline routesbetween at least two of the set of candidate facility placements, and aset of well trajectories between the set of candidate well placementsand the set of candidate facility placements.

In some embodiments, determining the set of candidate components mayinclude simultaneously determining a plurality of different types ofcandidate components.

In some embodiments, identifying the plurality of locations for theplurality of components may include determining a set of pipelineplacements between a set of facility locations for the hydrocarbonproduction site based on an A* algorithm.

In some embodiments, the set of pipeline placements may include one ormore optimal routes between the set of facility locations.

In some embodiments, the one or more optimal routes account fortopological complexities comprising mountains, valleys, faults, or anycombination thereof.

In some embodiments, the set of pipeline placements avoids one or moreprohibited areas.

In some embodiments, the maps representative of the area may includestructured maps having quadrilateral grid blocks.

In some embodiments, the first algorithm may include a particle swarmoptimization algorithm.

In a sixth embodiment, a hydrocarbon production site planning system mayinclude one or more processors and one or more memories comprisinginstructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causethe one or more processors to identify a plurality of locations for aplurality of components of the hydrocarbon production site. Identifyingthe plurality of locations for the plurality of components may includereceiving, via the one or more processors, input data comprising one ormore maps representative of an area, a plurality of sets of coordinatesfor a plurality of wells, and cost data associated with at least one ofthe plurality of components. Identifying the plurality of locations mayalso include determining, via the one or more processors, a set ofcandidate components that corresponds to the plurality of locationsbased on the input data and an algorithm, and determining, via the oneor more processors, one or more additional sets of candidate componentsthat correspond to the plurality of locations based on the input data,the set of candidate components, and the algorithm. Additionally,identifying the plurality of locations may include generating, via theone or more processors, one or more additional maps indicative of theplurality of locations for the plurality of components based on at leastone of the one or more additional sets of candidate components.

In some embodiments, the algorithm may be a particle swarm optimizationalgorithm.

In a seventh embodiment, a computer program may include instructions forimplementing any of the above methods.

In an eighth embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable medium mayinclude instructions for implementing any of the above methods.

Various refinements of the features noted above may be made in relationto various aspects of this disclosure. Further features may also beincorporated in these various aspects as well. These refinements andadditional features may be made individually or in any combination. Forinstance, various features discussed below in relation to one or more ofthe illustrated embodiments may be incorporated into any of theabove-described aspects of this disclosure alone or in any combination.The brief summary presented above is intended only to familiarize thereader with certain aspects and contexts of embodiments of thisdisclosure without limitation to the claimed subject matter.

For clarity and simplicity of description, not all combinations ofelements provided in the aspects of the invention recited above havebeen set forth expressly. Notwithstanding this, the skilled person willdirectly and unambiguously recognize that unless it is not technicallypossible, or it is explicitly stated to the contrary, the consistoryclauses referring to one aspect of the embodiments described herein areintended to apply mutatis mutandis as optional features of every otheraspect of the invention to which those consistory clauses could possiblyrelate.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various features, aspects, and advantages of this disclosure will becomebetter understood when the following detailed description is read withreference to the accompanying figures in which like characters representlike parts throughout the figures, wherein:

FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of an example hydrocarbon sitethat may produce and process hydrocarbons, according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of various components that may bepart of a planning system for determining locations of components thatmay be part of the hydrocarbon site of FIG. 1 , according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of logical layers for components that may bepart of the hydrocarbon site of FIG. 1 , according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 4 is a block diagram of example analysis scenarios that ahydrocarbon planning system may utilize when formulating possiblelayouts for a hydrocarbon site, according to one or more embodiments ofthis disclosure;

FIG. 5 is a flow diagram of an example method for identifying componentsfor a hydrocarbon site and suitable locations for the components,according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 6 is an example of a candidate solution for a two-layer facility,according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of an example method for clustering or groupingsets of components to determine suitable locations for the components ofthe hydrocarbon site, according to one or more embodiments of thisdisclosure;

FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of an example method of utilizing a map-basedscheme for determining a route for pipelines of a hydrocarbon site,according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 9 is an example topology having a pipeline starting point and apipeline target point, according to one or more embodiments of thisdisclosure;

FIG. 10 is a gridded map associating costs with different topologicalregions, according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 11 is a cost graph accounting for topological complexities anddirection of potential pipeline placement, according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 12 is a flow diagram of an example process for finding the shortestpath between two locations using an A* algorithm, according to one ormore embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 13 is a flow diagram of an example method corresponding to thegeneral workflow of Scenario 1 of FIG. 4 , according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 14 is a flow diagram of an example method for using particle swarmoptimization (PSO) operations to determine facility placements inaccordance with Scenario 1, according to one or more embodiments of thisdisclosure;

FIG. 15 is a flow diagram of an example method corresponding to thegeneral workflow of Scenario 2 of FIG. 4 , according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 16 is a flow diagram of an example method for using particle swarmoptimization (PSO) operations to determine facility placements andpipeline placements in accordance with Scenario 2, according to one ormore embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 17 is a flow diagram of an example method corresponding to thegeneral workflow of Scenario 3 of FIG. 4 , according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 18 is a flow diagram of an example method for using particle swarmoptimization (PSO) operations to determine facility placements, pipelineplacements, and well trajectory designs in accordance with Scenario 3,according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 19 is a flow diagram of an example method corresponding to thegeneral workflow of Scenario 4 of FIG. 4 , according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 20 is an example horizontal well having a heel, a toe, and a welltrajectory between a drilling center and the heel, according to one ormore embodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 21 is a flow diagram of an example method for determining welltrajectory design using a PSO algorithm, according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure;

FIG. 22 is a flow diagram of an example method of an automated heuristicworkflow to address well feasibility, according to one or moreembodiments of this disclosure; and

FIG. 23 is a flow diagram of a portion of the method of FIG. 22 ,according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

One or more specific embodiments will be described below. In an effortto provide a concise description of these embodiments, not all featuresof an actual implementation are described in the specification. Itshould be appreciated that in the development of any such actualimplementation, as in any engineering or design project, numerousimplementation-specific decisions must be made to achieve thedevelopers' specific goals, such as compliance with system-related andbusiness-related constraints, which may vary from one implementation toanother. Moreover, it should be appreciated that such a developmenteffort might be complex and time consuming, but would nevertheless be aroutine undertaking of design, fabrication, and manufacture for those ofordinary skill having the benefit of this disclosure.

The drawing figures are not necessarily to scale. Certain features ofthe embodiments may be shown exaggerated in scale or in somewhatschematic form, and some details of conventional elements may not beshown in the interest of clarity and conciseness. Although one or moreembodiments may be preferred, the embodiments disclosed should not beinterpreted, or otherwise used, as limiting the scope of the disclosure,including the claims. It is to be fully recognized that the differentteachings of the embodiments discussed may be employed separately or inany suitable combination to produce desired results. In addition, oneskilled in the art will understand that the description has broadapplication, and the discussion of any embodiment is meant only to beexemplary of that embodiment, and not intended to intimate that thescope of the disclosure, including the claims, is limited to thatembodiment.

When introducing elements of various embodiments of this disclosure, thearticles “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to mean that there are one ormore of the elements. The terms “including” and “having” are used in anopen-ended fashion, and thus should be interpreted to mean “including,but not limited to . . . . ” Any use of any form of the terms “couple,”or any other term describing an interaction between elements is intendedto mean either an indirect or a direct interaction between the elementsdescribed.

Certain terms are used throughout the description and claims to refer toparticular features or components. As one skilled in the art willappreciate, different persons may refer to the same feature or componentby different names. This document does not intend to distinguish betweencomponents or features that differ in name but not function, unlessspecifically stated.

Hydrocarbon sites may include a number of components that facilitatesthe extraction, processing, and distribution of hydrocarbons (e.g., oil)from a well or well site. When initially analyzing a potentialhydrocarbon extraction site, a number of factors are considered toidentify the types of facilities to place at the hydrocarbon site, thelocations of the facilities, the distance between facilities, thelocations of the reservoir well sections (e.g., wells themselves), welltrajectories, the placement of pipelines between such facilities, andthe like. For example, the locations of the wells themselves, welltrajectories, the placement of facilities, and/or the placement ofpipelines between such facilities may be analyzed for viability, time orcost efficiency, reservoir production, or any combination thereof.

Although a wide variety of solutions or arrangement of components andlocations may be determined for a particular hydrocarbon site, certainarrangements and locations may result in an overall lower operationalcost, a lower construction cost, a higher production efficiency, andother favorable metrics as compared to other sets of solutions. As moresolutions that improve the efficient use of resources (e.g., time,money, supplies) for commissioning the construction and operations offacilities in the hydrocarbon site are determined, an optimal facilityplacement plan may be identified. As used herein, optimal may refer tosolution sets or determined arrangements that incur the least amount ofcosts, provide the most efficient amount of production speed, use theleast amount of resources, or a combination of these properties ascompared to other solutions for the production and placements offacilities in the hydrocarbon site. Moreover, in some embodiments, theoptimal solution may be based on user selectable parameters such asthreshold costs, resource expenditures, hydrocarbon production, and/orthe processing time to achieve the solution. In addition, as usedherein, optimal solutions may also include improved solutions that aremore efficient in cost, time, distance, and the like. As such, optimalroutes may include improved routes relative to previously determinedroutes with respect to cost, time, distance, and the like. In the samemanner, optimal placement may include improved placements relative topreviously determined placements with respect to cost, time, distance,and the like.

With this in mind, the present embodiments described herein are relatedto systems and methods for iteratively identifying a set of componentsor facilities for a hydrocarbon site and locations for the set ofcomponents, such that each identified set of components may involve alower construction cost, a lower operational cost, more efficienttransfer of hydrocarbons, more efficient extraction of hydrocarbon, andthe like. That is, the present embodiments described herein are relatedto hydrocarbon field development planning operations that identifiessuitable (e.g., optimal) facility placements, pipeline placements,and/or well placements and/or trajectories for various hydrocarbonextraction and processing operations.

To effectively plan and identify suitable components (e.g., facilities,pipelines, and/or wells) and suitable component locations for thehydrocarbon site, a planning system may consider a wide array ofvariables related to the geographical properties of the area in whichthe hydrocarbons are being extracted. Indeed, the identification processmay be integrated with well placement design and well trajectory design,each of which poses a challenge in the field development planningoperations (e.g., at concept screening phase). During this initialplanning phase, the planning system may assess multiple concepts thatinvolve a collection of components arranged in different locations withrespect to a period of time (e.g., desired project timeline).

Some planning systems use integrated workflows that become prohibitivelyexpensive with respect to cost and computational processing power. Thatis, the planning systems may identify sets of components that exceed adesired project cost, may take more than a threshold amount of time(e.g., days, months) to produce, or the like. Indeed, identifyingsuitable placements for facilities may involve minimizing costs forproducing (e.g., constructing, operating) certain facilities whileaccounting for topological complexities of the area, prescribedcapacities of the respective facilities and hydrocarbon operations,trajectory constraints for distributing the extracted or processedhydrocarbons, and the like. By way of example, the planning system mayselect an optimal or suitable number and location of the different“nodes,” which may correspond to types of facilities, locations of thefacilities, wells or well placements and the paths of the connections(e.g., pipelines or well trajectories) between nodes, and the like.

Unlike other optimization schemes, which may be prohibitively slow withexhaustive search parameters and fail to account for the varioustopological complexities typically encountered in real scenarios, thepresent embodiments provide a more efficient analysis that reduces theamount of processing power employed by computing systems tasked toidentify suitable components, component placement, and connectivitycomponents within a hydrocarbon site. In other words, other optimizationschemes are limited by certain memory and computational parameters ofexisting computing systems to provide useful facilities recommendationsfor hydrocarbon site planning operations. Furthermore, processing ofdifferent sets/types of nodes may be done modularly (e.g., set portions)to accommodate for various complexities of the analysis, which may allowfor the ability to trade computer processing time/resources forprecision of the optimal solution. For example, complexity may beincreased by simultaneously solving for well placement, facilityplacement, and pipeline placement versus solving for well placement,facility placement, and pipeline placement in a particular sequence ororder using results of a previous analysis to perform a subsequentanalysis. However, in some scenarios, the increased complexity may leadto improved optimal solutions. As used herein, simultaneous processing,analysis, or solving may generally mean that components are consideredtogether (e.g., as part of the same algorithm or cost function) in asingle analysis as opposed to sequential analysis. Furthermore, theoptimal solution may be a solution found in a given amount of time ornumber of computer iterations, such that the solution corresponds to atime efficient and cost-effective solution relative to sequentialanalysis techniques.

With the foregoing in mind, this disclosure includes a planning systemthat may employ one or more algorithms such as a particle swarmoptimization (PSO) algorithm to identify components (e.g., facilities,wells, pipelines, etc.) and locations/placements for components that maybe part of a hydrocarbon site. In addition, the planning system maycouple different algorithms, such as the PSO algorithm and the A*searching algorithm to determine pipelines layouts that may be usedbetween various identified components. In certain embodiments, theplanning system may invoke a modular modular approach for facilityand/or well placement optimization by analyzing various levels ofproblem complexity with regard to placement of the components. Forexample, the PSO algorithm may account for different component layers(e.g., hierarchical layers, operational functions within differenthierarchical levels), topological complexity of the hydrocarbon site andsurround areas, any prohibited or inaccessible areas, and the like. Byemploying the PSO algorithm in this modular fashion, the presentembodiments may significantly reduce the amount of time and processingpower previously used by other (e.g., traditional) planning systems toidentify components and locations for components of the hydrocarbon siteduring design phases. Additional details related to a process foridentifying components and locations for components of a hydrocarbonsite based on non-gradient based algorithms such as the PSO algorithmwith the A* searching algorithm will be discussed below. Furthermore,while certain aspects of the present disclosure are discussed as usingthe PSO algorithm, as should be appreciated, additional or substitutealgorithms may be used in different scenarios such as black holeparticle swarm optimization (BHPSO), differential evolution (DE), orother suitable (e.g., non-gradient based) algorithm.

By way of introduction, FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of anexample hydrocarbon site 10 where hydrocarbon products, such as crudeoil and natural gas, may be extracted from the ground, processed, andstored. In accordance with the present embodiments, the hydrocarbon site10 may include a number of components or facilities that correspond towells, processing facilities, collection components, distributionnetworks, and the like. During the design phase of planning for thetypes of components to use at the hydrocarbon site 10, the locations ofthe components at the hydrocarbon site 10, and other design properties,a variety of factors are taken under consideration.

Indeed, hydrocarbon production systems are becoming more and morecomplex as the demands of affordable and sustainable energy sourcesgrows. As such, the evolving growth in energy demand cultivates into anincrease demand for economically efficient field layout patterns. Withthis in mind, the present embodiments provide facility placement layoutoptimization techniques within the hydrocarbon site 10 to develop adesign for the hydrocarbon site 10 that maximizes one or more drivingvalues, such as a net present value or hydrocarbons recovery factor.Scenarios, from a subsurface point of view, may encompass a wide rangeof elements including well count, component placement, component type,control schemes, operation schedules, and other parameter to increase aprofitability of hydrocarbon development projects. As such, the presentembodiments described herein may provide improved systems and methodsfor generating design plans for the hydrocarbon site 10 based on theexample components described below.

Referring now to FIG. 1 , the hydrocarbon site 10 may include a numberof wells 12 disposed within a geological formation 14. The wells 12 mayinclude drilling platform 16 that may have performed a drillingoperation to drill out a wellbore 18. Additionally, as used herein,wells 12 may generally refer to physical components such as the drillingplatform 16 and wellbore 18 and/or the general area of the reservoir inwhich extraction is desired (e.g., a reservoir well section). Thedrilling operations may include drilling the wellbore 18, injectingdrilling fluids into the wellbore 18, performing casing operationswithin the wellbore 18, and the like. In addition to including thedrilling platform 16, the hydrocarbon site 10 may include surfaceequipment 20 that may carry out certain operations, such as cementinstallation operation, well logging operations to detect conditions ofthe wellbore 18, and the like. As such, the surface equipment 20 mayinclude equipment that store cement slurries, drilling fluids,displacement fluids, spacer fluids, chemical wash fluids, and the like.The surface equipment 20 may include piping and other materials used totransport the various fluids described above into the wellbore 18. Thesurface equipment 20 may also include pumps and other equipment (e.g.,batch mixers, centrifugal pumps, liquid additive metering systems,tanks, etc.) that may fill in the interior of a casing string with thefluids discussed above.

In addition to the equipment used for drilling operations, thehydrocarbon site may include a number of well devices that may controlthe flow of hydrocarbons being extracted from the wells 12. Forinstance, the well devices in the hydrocarbon site 10 may includepumpjacks 22, submersible pumps 24, well trees 26, and the like. Thepumpjacks 22 may mechanically lift hydrocarbons (e.g., oil) out of thewell 12 when a bottom hole pressure of the well 12 is not sufficient toextract the hydrocarbons to the surface. The submersible pump 24 may bean assembly that may be submerged in a hydrocarbon liquid that may bepumped. As such, the submersible pump 24 may include a hermeticallysealed motor, such that liquids may not penetrate the seal into themotor. Further, the hermetically sealed motor may push hydrocarbons fromunderground areas or the reservoir to the surface. The well trees 26 maybe an assembly of valves, spools, and fittings used for natural flowingwells. As such, the well trees 26 may be used for an oil well, gas well,water injection well, water disposal well, gas injection well,condensate well, and the like. By way of reference, the wells 12 may bepart of a first hierarchical level and the well devices that extracthydrocarbons from the wells 12 may be part of a second hierarchicallevel above the first hierarchical level. Each hierarchical level mayinclude a number of components and the presently disclosed techniquesmay account for these levels when determining the design plans for thehydrocarbon site 10.

After the hydrocarbons are extracted from the surface via the welldevices, the extracted hydrocarbons may be distributed to other devicesvia a network of pipelines 28. That is, the well devices of thehydrocarbon site 10 may be connected together via a network of pipelines28. In addition to the well devices described above, the network ofpipelines 28 may be connected to other collecting or gatheringcomponents, such as wellhead distribution manifolds 30, separators 32,storage tanks 34, and the like.

In some embodiments, the pumpjacks 22, the submersible pumps 24, welltrees 26, wellhead distribution manifolds 30, separators 32, and storagetanks 34 may be connected together via the network of pipelines 28. Thewellhead distribution manifolds 30 may collect the hydrocarbons that mayhave been extracted by the pumpjacks 22, the submersible pumps 24, andthe well trees 26, such that the collected hydrocarbons may be routed tovarious hydrocarbon processing or storage areas in the hydrocarbon site10. The separator 32 may include a pressure vessel that may separatewell fluids produced from oil and gas wells into separate gas and liquidcomponents. For example, the separator 32 may separate hydrocarbonsextracted by the pumpjacks 22, the submersible pumps 24, or the welltrees 26 into oil components, gas components, and water components.After the hydrocarbons have been separated, each separated component maybe stored in a particular storage tank 34. The hydrocarbons stored inthe storage tanks 34 may be transported via the pipelines 28 totransport vehicles, refineries, and the like.

Although the hydrocarbon site 10 is described above with certaincomponents, it should be understood that the hydrocarbon site 10 mayinclude additional, fewer, or different components. For example,although discussed above in relation to a hydrocarbon site 10 on land,present embodiments may also include analysis of off-shore hydrocarbonsites 10 and the components thereof. That is, the embodiments describedherein are directed to determining a design for any suitable hydrocarbonsite that may include various types of components that is related to theproduction and distribution of hydrocarbons. In this way, the componentsdepicted in FIG. 1 are provided as an example context in which theembodiments described herein may be implemented. As such, theembodiments of this disclosure should not be limited to the componentslisted in FIG. 1 . Moreover, additional components relating to on- oroff-shore hydrocarbon production may be implemented as additional layers(e.g., hierarchical or functional) in the modular planning system.

Keeping this in mind, the present embodiments described herein mayinclude systems and methods for identifying components (e.g., welldevices) and locations for components in the hydrocarbon site 10 basedon design data related to the hydrocarbon site. By way of operation, aplanning system 50, as presented in FIG. 2 , may receive the input dataand identify a set of locations for the components in the hydrocarbonsite 10 based on an optimization algorithm such as the particle swarmoptimization (PSO) algorithm according to a process that will bedescribed in greater detail below with reference to FIG.4.

Referring now to FIG. 2 , the planning system 50 may include anysuitable computing device, cloud-computing device, or the like and mayinclude various components to perform various analysis operations. Asshown in FIG. 2 , the planning system 50 may include a communicationcomponent 52, a processor 54, a memory 56, a storage component 58,input/output (I/O) ports 60, a display 62, and the like. Thecommunication component 52 may be a wireless or wired communicationcomponent that may facilitate communication between different monitoringsystems, gateway communication devices, various control systems, and thelike. The processor 54 may be any type of computer processor ormicroprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code. The memory56 and the storage component 58 may be any suitable articles ofmanufacture that can serve as media to store processor-executable code,data, or the like. These articles of manufacture may representnon-transitory computer-readable media (i.e., any suitable form ofmemory or storage) that may store the processor-executable code used bythe processor 54 to perform the presently disclosed techniques. Thememory 56 and the storage component 58 may also be used to store datareceived via the I/Oports 60, data analyzed by the processor 54, or thelike.

The I/Oports 60 may be interfaces that may couple to various types ofI/O modules such as sensors, programmable logic controllers (PLC), andother types of equipment. For example, the I/Oports 60 may serve as aninterface to pressure sensors, flow sensors, temperature sensors, andthe like. As such, the planning system 50 may receive data associatedwith a well via the I/Oports 60. The I/Oports 60 may also serve as aninterface to enable the planning system 50 to connect and communicatewith surface instrumentation, servers, and the like.

The display 62 may include any type of electronic display such as aliquid crystal display, a light-emitting-diode display, and the like. Assuch, data acquired via the I/Oports and/or data analyzed by theprocessor 54 may be presented on the display 62, such that the planningsystem 50 may present designs for hydrocarbon sites 10 for view. Incertain embodiments, the display 62 may be a touch screen display or anyother type of display capable of receiving inputs from an operator.Although the planning system 50 is described as including the componentspresented in FIG. 2 , the planning system 50 should not be limited toincluding the components listed in FIG. 2 . Indeed, the planning system50 may include additional or fewer components than described above.

It should also be noted that for the sake of modularity and flexibilitywith regard to both the size and specifications of the targeted facilityoptimization problem, the planning system 50 may be implemented over aweb application with back-end and front-end components. In this scheme,the back-end component may be responsible for handling certainoptimization algorithms, while the front-end component may be used toset optimization problem specifications and parameters from a user'sperspective as detailed further below. The communication between thefront-end component and back-end component of the planning system 50 mayinvolve communications over any suitable network.

With the foregoing in mind, the planning system 50 may implement amodular optimization scheme for component placement optimization.Moreover, the planning system 50 may also use an A* searching algorithmfor planning the layout of the pipelines 28. By way of example, theplanning system 50 may employ the PSO algorithm to increase aconvergence time to identifying a suitable set of components andlocations for the components in the hydrocarbon site 10, whileminimizing an objective function value, such as overall cost, ascompared to other planning processes. Moreover, the planning system 50may apply the A* searching algorithm to determine suitable pipelinelayout designs, thereby incorporating the power of heuristic functionsto attain an optimal (e.g., cost-efficient, resource-efficient) solutionusing fewer computing resources and computing time, as compared to otherplanning processes. By employing the heuristic function to convey withthe specifications and constraints applicable to realistic pipelinelayout scenarios, the planning system 50 may reduce time accrued insearch practices for identifying component locations, thereby reducingthe expenditures of computational time and resources.

In some embodiments, the planning system 50 may apply an optimizationscheme such as the PSO algorithm to input data in a way to toleratevarious features in order to solve practical onshore and offshorehydrocarbon fields' scenarios. That is, the planning system 50 may usethe PSO algorithm to solve an optimization problem related to designingthe hydrocarbon site 10. By way of example, the optimization problem maycorrespond to constructing the hydrocarbon site 10 at a threshold costto produce a threshold amount of hydrocarbons over some period of time.To define the optimization problem or optimization parameters for theoptimization problem, the planning system 50 may evaluate thehydrocarbon site 10 according to certain hierarchical or logical layers.

For example, FIG. 3 is a block diagram of logical layers 70 forcomponents that may be part of the hydrocarbon site 10. The logicallayers 70 may detail different logical groupings of various componentsthat may be part of the hydrocarbon site 10. As such, each layer of thelogical layers 70 may include a collection of nodes that perform somesimilar function. By way of example, referring to FIG. 3 , the wells 12may be nodes that are part of a layer 0. The wells 12 may correspond tolocations in which hydrocarbons may be produced. Layer 1 may includedrilling centers 76, which may correspond to the drilling platform 16,various types of well devices (e.g., pumpjacks 22, submersible pumps 24,well trees 26) used for extracting the hydrocarbons from the wells 12 inthe layer 0. In the same manner, layer 2 may receive output from thedrilling centers 76 at gathering centers 80 (e.g., wellhead distributionmanifolds 30, separators 32). Layer 3 may be hierarchically positionedabove layer 2 and may include central processing facilities 84 (e.g.,storage tanks 34) that may collect the outputs of the gathering centers80. The central processing facilities 84 may, in some embodiments, bepositioned within a threshold distance of distribution channels (e.g.,transcontinental pipeline, shipyard, highway) to enable the processedhydrocarbons to be transported to a destination site.

As illustrated in FIG. 3 , a four-layer facility of the hydrocarbon site10 with layers 0 to 3 correspond to wells, drilling centers, gatheringcenters, and central processing facility, respectively. In this way, thelogical layers 70 provide an example case of a production systemoptimization problem that includes N_(l)(l=1, . . . , N_(l)) logicallayers (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3), such that each layer contains N_(n) ^(l)(i=1,. . . , N_(n) ^(l)) nodes. Layer 0 denotes the wells 12 with N_(n)⁰=N_(w). Layer 0 is (e.g., horizontal well sections) input to thefacility placement optimization problem. Therefore, the planning system50 may solve an optimization problem presented below starting from layer1 and above. As should be appreciated, the number of layers may beincreased or decreased to add or remove complexity. Furthermore, theplanning system 50 may optimize connections between the layers 70, suchas pipelines 28 and/or well trajectories 86 simultaneously orseparately.

Referring to FIG. 3 , the planning system 50 may perform a modularoptimization of the number and location of nodes in each logical layerto minimize an overall cost in building the collection of nodes in thehydrocarbon site 10. That is, the production facilities identified bythe planning system 50 may be related to a multi-layer tree, in whicheach layer in this tree denotes one logical layer. As such, the planningsystem 50 solves an optimization problem that minimizes a total cost forbuilding the facilities or other components that correspond to the nodesbased on the logical layers with wells (layer 0), drilling centers(layer 1), gathering centers (layer 2), and central processing facility(layer 3), and the nodes of each logical layer (layer l) that areconnected to nodes in an upper layer (layer l+1) through pipelines 28(e.g., connections). Moreover, the planning system 50 may combine thedetermined facility placements with the A* searching algorithm tooptimize pipeline layouts that connect nodes to another node or othernodes.

Keeping this in mind, optimization parameters that may be used by theplanning system 50 to solve the optimization problem may include thefollowing:

-   (1) Number of nodes, N_(n) ^(l), in layer l,l=1, . . . , N_(l);-   (2) Nodes coordinates X_(i) ^(l), Y_(i) ^(l), and Z_(i) ^(l), i=1, .    . . , N_(n) ^(l);-   (3) Number of nodes in layer l−1 connected to each node in layer l;-   (4) C_(ij) ^(l): the assignment of node j in layer l−1 to its    corresponding node i in layer 1,

${{where}C_{ij}^{l}} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}{0,} & {{{if}{node}j{in}{layer}{}l} - {1{is}{not}{connected}{to}{node}i{in}{layer}l}} \\{1,} & {{{if}{node}j{in}{layer}l} - {1{}{{is}{connected}{to}{node}}i{in}{layer}l}}\end{matrix} \right.$

-   (5) Pipeline placement; the optimal path connecting two nodes on a    given physical layer. Example: pipelines connecting drilling centers    to gathering centers. This can be, optionally, simplified so that    these pipelines can be replaced by the Euclidean distance between    the two nodes. Moreover, the optimal path may be formed of multiple    nodes between a starting point and a target point, and optimization    may utilize the location of each node on the path.-   (6) Well trajectory; the optimal trajectory for a wellbore 18 from    the surface to the well location. Further, optimization of well    trajectories may include changing control points and/or kick-off    points (KOPs).

Based on the logical layers 70 of the hydrocarbon site 10, the planningsystem 50 may focus on minimizing a well-defined objective function forfacility optimization: TC, which represents a facility total cost ($)combining the various nodes costs as well as the correspondingconnections costs. An example optimization problem that may be definedfor the planning system 50 is provided below in Equation (1).

TC=Σ_(l=1) ^(N) ^(l) [(C_(n) ^(l)×N_(a) ^(l)×N_(a) ^(l))+(C_(c)^(l)×TD_(a) ^(l))]  (1)

Referring to Equation (1), N_(a) ^(l) and TD_(a) ^(l) may denote theactual number of nodes in layer l (N_(a) ^(l)≤N_(n) ^(l)) and a totaldistance from nodes in layer l−1 to nodes in layer l (m), respectively.That is, TD_(a) ^(l) is the sum of all the connections length (m) fromnodes in layer l−1 to nodes in layer 1.

As may be appreciated, a tradeoff may exist between the facilityplacement costs (e.g., chosen nodes costs) and the drilling costs (e.g.,pipelines connecting the various hierarchical layers of the hydrocarbonsite 10), where the goal is to reach an optimal solution that minimizesa total facility cost. In addition to the optimization problem detailedabove, the planning system 50 may be limited to identifying solutionsbased on certain constraints. For example, a list of a set ofconstraints of the above optimization problem, for each layer l,l=1, . .. , N_(l) may include the following:

(1) Maximum allowed N_(a) ^(l).N_(actual)≤N_(n) ^(l)

(2) Maximum capacity of each node in each corresponding layer N_(c)^(l):N_(c) ^(l)≤N_(n) ^(l)

(3) Non-negativity for N_(a) ^(l) and TD_(a) ^(l).

(4) Connections maximum length in layer l.

Before describing details regarding implementing the optimizationalgorithm to identify locations for components in the hydrocarbon site10, it should be noted that the planning system 50 may or may notanalyze certain components of the hydrocarbon site simultaneously. Ingeneral, after a hydrocarbon site 10 location is identified throughsubsurface studies, the design of the production system becomes anoptimization problem with respect to time and costs. Aspects of theproduction system change from onshore to offshore fields and include foran offshore field. For instance, the decision about the number ofplatforms, placement and sizing the platforms, and wells-platformassignment are variables that may be evaluated in the optimizationproblem. Throughout the field development planning exercise, includingthe early phase during which the development concept is selected,various development models may be taken into consideration and mayinvolve careful evaluation for their economic viability and technicalfeasibility. Over this screening stage, the planning system 50 mayimplement an iterative workflow where various scenarios of facilitydevelopment optimization are evaluated considering the core high-levelcosting and potential surface limitations. As a result, the planningsystem 50 may implement a highly efficient facility placementoptimization scheme that accommodates topological complexities andsurface constraints (e.g., prohibited areas) as described below.Furthermore, the efficiency of the optimization scheme may be variable.

To help illustrate, FIG. 4 is a block diagram of example analysisscenarios 90 that the planning system 50 may utilize when formulatingoptimal layouts for a suitable hydrocarbon site (e.g., hydrocarbon site10). In Scenario 1, each set of well placements 92, facility placements94, pipeline placements 96, and well trajectory designs 98 aredetermined separately based on input data 100 and a previously performedanalysis. In other words, the optimization of each component isindependently determined based on the input data 100 and any otheranalysis performed prior to the respective optimization analysis.Indeed, while the location or selection of certain components may berelated to that of other components (e.g., pipeline placements aredependent upon facility locations), independent analysis, as referred toherein, corresponds to performing analysis without simultaneousconsideration. Scenarios 2-4 include a simultaneous analysis 102 ofmultiple different components. For example, Scenario 2 includes asimultaneous analysis 102 of facility placements 94 and pipelineplacements 96, Scenario 3 includes a simultaneous analysis 102 offacility placements 94, pipeline placements 96, and well trajectorydesigns 98, and Scenario 4 includes a simultaneous analysis 102 of wellplacement 95, facility placements 94, pipeline placements 96, andtrajectory designs 98. Additionally, the computational complexity 104increases with more integrated simultaneous analyses 102. As such, insome embodiments, the planning system 50 may select a scenario 90 toachieve an optimal solution of components within a specified (e.g., userspecified) computational resource parameter or time constraint.Furthermore, one or more user preferences or selections may set apriority (e.g., on a continuous or discrete scale) between a computationefficiency and an accuracy of optimization. In addition, the planningsystem 50 may receive a user selection for a maximum cost value for aparticular hydrocarbon site 10 and the planning system 50 may select anappropriate scenario 90 based on the maximum cost value. That is, tofind lower cost solutions, the planning system 50 may select a scenario90 that has higher computational complexities. Further, while each ofthe above scenarios 90 (e.g., Scenarios 1-4) are discussed in furtherdetail below, as should be appreciated, the simultaneous analysis 102may include any subset of the components of the hydrocarbon site 10 andmay be performed in a variety of suitable orders.

Furthermore, while present techniques utilize the an optimizationalgorithm such as PSO to select and/or place the components of thehydrocarbon site 10, including the simultaneous analysis 102,independently analyzed components may use a separate (e.g., independent)PSO algorithm or other analysis techniques. For example, othertechniques may be used to identify well placement or well trajectoryseparate from facility placement and/or pipeline placement. For example,a well placement algorithm may use a net hydrocarbon thickness map toplace wells using a black hole algorithm. Furthermore, even if wellplacement and well trajectory are not provided as outputs by theplanning system 50, this does not significantly impact the purpose offacility design (e.g., identification and placement of components in thehydrocarbon site 10).

In some embodiments, the planning system 50 may employ a PSO algorithmfor identifying locations for components in the hydrocarbon site 10.FIG. 5 illustrates a method 110 for performing the optimizationoperations. As should be appreciated, other optimization algorithms maybe used in place of the PSO algorithm. Although the followingdescription of the method 110 is described as being performed by theplanning system 50, it should be understood that any suitable computingsystem may perform the method 110. Additionally, although the method 110is described in a particular order, it should be noted that the method110 may be performed in any suitable order.

As mentioned above, the planning system 50 may be implemented over a webapplication with back-end and front-end components. In this scheme, theback-end component may be responsible of handling certain optimizationalgorithms, while the front-end component may be used to setoptimization problem specifications and parameters from a user'sperspective as will be detailed below. The communication between thefront-end component and back-end component of the planning system 50 mayinvolve communications over any suitable network.

Referring to FIG. 5 , at block 112, the planning system 50 may readinput data 100 related to the hydrocarbon site 10 in which thecomponents may be placed. The input data 100, in some embodiments, mayinclude map data representative of a number of physical layersassociated with an area expected to be used as the hydrocarbon site 10.The input data 100 may also include logical layer data representative ofvarious logical layers in which different sets of components may performdifferent operations within the hydrocarbon site 10. Furthermore, theinput data 100 may include any geographical, topological, subterranean,and/or subsea mapping, dataset, or cost estimation to facilitateanalysis of well placement 92, facility placement 94, pipeline placement96, and/or well trajectory design 98. In some embodiments, includingembodiments with independent analyses, the input data 100 may alsoinclude sets of coordinates for the wells 12 or other independentlyanalyzed components at the hydrocarbon site 10 as well as cost data forthe components planned to be deployed at the hydrocarbon site 10.

By way of example, the input data 100 may include map data. The map datamay include structured topological maps that correspond to thehydrocarbon site 10 on which component placement optimization may beapplied. The map may include a union of quadrate cells, and each ofthese cells may be composed of four nodes. The map may integrate ordefine prohibited areas where components (e.g., facility nodes) areprohibited from being placed and where pipelines cannot pass-through. Insome embodiments, the planning system 50 may apply a penalty to theprohibited areas to avoid them as much as possible, and thus reduce thecorresponding cost. In some embodiments, the map data may includegridded topological maps, such as structured maps that are composed ofquadrilateral grid blocks. Another map, such as triangular net, may alsobe used to possibly permit improvement in distinctive topologicalcomplexities.

The input data may also include well data. The well data may includecoordinates (e.g., X_(i) ⁰, Y_(i) ⁰, and Z_(i) ⁰, i=1, . . . , N_(n) ⁰)that may define the well's entry point in the reservoir forvertical/deviated wells and wells' toe or heel in the case of horizontalwells. In some embodiments, the planning system 50 may determine thetoe/heel locations to minimize the well's total depth.

The input data may also include a number of facility layers, a maximum(e.g., upper limit) number of nodes in a layer, a capacity of nodes in alayer, a maximum connection length in a layer, a cost of a node in alayer, a cost of a connection per distance from nodes in a layer, andthe like. A list of the variables that correspond to these input datatypes is provided below:

-   N_(l) Number of facility layers.-   N_(n) ^(l) Maximum (upper limit) number of nodes in layer l.-   N_(c) ^(l) Capacity of nodes in layer l. That is, the maximum number    of nodes in layer l−1 that can be connected to a node in layer l.-   TD_(c) ^(l) Connections maximum length in layer l(m). This is mainly    used to account for the well's total depth constraint.-   C_(n) ^(l) Cost of node in layer 1 ($/node).-   C_(c) ^(l) Cost of connection/meter from nodes in layer l−1 to nodes    in layer 1 ($/m).

In some embodiments, the planning system may receive the input data viathe communication component 52, the I/O ports 60, or the like. Forexample, the planning system 50 may include a developed front-end webapplication that communicates with the back-end optimizer through apublic internet protocol and specific port numbers in a way tofacilitate the user engagement. The planning system 50 may implementthis scheme through an interface where the user enters the number oflogical layers (e.g., manifolds, platforms, foating producton storageoffloading (FPSO), onshore facility) of the facility optimizationproblem along with maps representing the physical layers correspondingto each of these logical layers. Moreover, the user may provide theinput parameters pertaining to each logical layer l, =1, . . . , N_(l):N_(n) ^(l), N_(c) ^(l), C_(n) ^(l) and C_(c) ^(l) mentioned above. Theinput parameters specific to a facility optimization problem may bedispatched together from the front-end application placed at the user'smachine to the back-end machine via the communication component 52(e.g., TCP/IP tunnel).

At block 114, the planning system 50 may initialize parameters and nodesfor the hydrocarbon site 10. In some embodiments, the input parametersmay be entered by a user through the front-end of the planning system50, which may forward the data to the back-end of the planning system50, which may execute computer-readable instructions that implement anoptimizer application such as a PSO application. The optimizerapplication may then use the input parameters (e.g., input data) toinitialize the optimization problem, which may then be solved by theoptimizer application. By way of example, a PSO application may useN_(PSO) ^(P)=100 particles with a maximum number of iterations N_(PSO)^(IT)=1000. In any case, at block 114, the planning system 50 focuses oninitializing a set of “candidate solutions” that satisfy the problemconstraints. A candidate solution may thus be composed of a set oflogical layers annotated by LL where each layer (LL_(l)) is composed ofa set of logical nodes (LN_(i)).

At block 116, the planning system 50 may randomize node locations forthe candidate solutions that it initialized in block 114. Initially, theplanning system 50 may randomly place nodes of each logical layer withina corresponding map. The random distribution may account for collisionavoidance and uniform (e.g., unbiased) distribution of the nodes. Thatis, the planning system 50 may account for collision avoidance betweennodes by randomly placing nodes in the grid cells while ensuring that nomore than one node can be placed in a given grid cell. Each node is thusinitialized by being assigned a specific grid cell on the map, and therespective grid cell corresponds to the location where the node isconstructed. An example of a candidate solution is illustrated in FIG. 6.

After randomizing the node locations, the planning system 50 may, atblock 118, start an iterative process for clustering nodes. In someembodiments, the planning system 50 may group nodes in layer 1 andcluster the nodes to nodes in layer l+1 in a way to minimize thecorresponding cost in terms of used nodes. The clustering of nodes maydepend on the corresponding nodes' capacities and a distance between thenodes in layers l and l+1. In some embodiments, a bottom-up approach maybe used that starts by clustering nodes in the lowest layer (l=0) andconnecting them to a number of nodes in layer l=1. Then, the sameclustering method may be used to cluster nodes in layers=1, . . . ,N_(l-1). Additional details regarding the clustering process will bediscussed below with reference to FIG. 7 .

At block 120, the planning system 50 may perform a cost calculation forthe set of candidate solutions determined after block 118. That is, theplanning system 50 may evaluate each candidate solution with respect toa cost function. The cost function calculates a total cost of building afacility using the given configuration specified by the candidatesolution. The clustering algorithm may thus use a set number of nodes tomake connections that minimize total cost. The total cost of thefacility may then be determined based on a sum of costs of all nodes inthe set of candidate solutions added to the sum of costs of connectionsconstructed among them. By way of example, the total cost of theproposed solution is calculated using Equation (2):

TotalCost=τ_(i) _(n) ₃₂ ₀ ^(N) ^(n) ^(T)NostCost_(i) _(n) +Σ_(i) _(c) ₃₂₀ ^(N) ^(c) ^(T)ConnectionCost_(i) _(c)   (2)

Referring to Equation (2) above, N_(n) ^(T) and N_(c) ^(T) denote atotal number of nodes and connections, respectively. Node costcorresponds to an expected cost of a node in each layer as specified atthe start. However, only nodes that are part of the final facility modelare included in the total cost calculation (i.e., not the maximum numberof nodes in the initialized solution). Connection cost corresponds to acost for building a connection between two nodes. Connections may bewell trajectories 86 (e.g., from layer 0 to layer 1) or pipelines28/flowlines (e.g., when connecting upper layers). In each of the twocases, a different methodology may be used to model and accuratelyassess the cost of building the connection.

In some embodiments, the planning system may employ an option to use asimplified and drastically faster version of well and pipelinestrajectory for a more efficient but less accurate solution. In thisapproach, the planning system 50 may assume that trajectories arestraight lines (e.g., Euclidean distance) and their cost is simplycalculated using Equation (3).

Connection Cost=Connection Length×Connection Cost per Meter   (3)

For more realistic and, consequently, more accurate results, theplanning system 50 may employ an A*search algorithm, discussed furtherbelow, to optimize a pipeline layout. This approach provides morerealistic modeling for the pipelines and, hence, a much more reliablecost estimation based on the topology of the surface, the effect ofpressure on pipelines construction, and any additional costmodifications implied by the surface.

At block 122, the planning system 50 may update optimization parametersused to solve the optimization problem. That is, the cost may beconsidered as a minimal cost that can be reached for the optimizationproblem at a specific iteration. As such, the determined nodes' numbersand positions in each logical layer, as well as the clustering/groupingof these nodes, may be saved in the storage component 58 and consideredto be a temporary optimal set of candidate solutions prior to applyingthe PSO algorithm or performing the PSO process. These nodes' positions,as well as the determined cost, may then be used for the PSO particlesinitialization for the following iteration, thereby applying a developedsmart restart scheme.

At block 124, the planning system 50 may update the optimizationalgorithm (e.g., PSO algorithm). The PSO algorithm is an evolutionaryiterative algorithm, such that each of the N_(PSO) ^(P) particlessymbolizes a solution of the corresponding objective function and the“swarm” represents the particles group evolved in the optimizationscheme. As such, earlier iteration results are used to establishvelocity parameters used then to determine a position of each particlein the search space. The preceding particle velocity is mathematicallyformulated to update the velocity parameter of the correspondingparticle. This mathematical formulation uses the particle's formervelocity (e.g., from the previous PSO iteration), corresponding distanceto the particle that attained the global best and corresponding distanceto its own local best attained at any PSO iteration. In this way, eachof the N_(PSO) ^(P) particles may store an optimal position or“solution” it achieves all over the optimization process (e.g., localbest). On the other hand, the algorithm similarly stores the optimalposition achieved by any of its particles (e.g., global best). A similarlogical flow may be used by replacing PSO with a different optimizer.

At block 126, the planning system 50 may check the convergence of thecandidate solutions. If the cost of the best-case particle (e.g., lowestcost) and that of the average case are less than a prescribed tolerance(e.g., 1%, 5%, or user selected tolerance), the planning system 50 maydeclare that a convergence is detected and proceed to block 128. Atblock 128, the planning system 50 may adopt the best-case particle(e.g., lowest cost) results as the optimal solution for the for thefacility optimization problem. In some embodiments, the planning system50 may then present the results for the identified components on amapped visualization for a user to view. That is, the planning system 50may present the components at the identified locations of a map, whichmay have been received via the input data 100. The locations may bepresented with the map as a visualization depicted via the display 62 orany suitable electronic display. In some embodiments, the datacorresponding the locations of the components, the generatedvisualization, and the like may be stored in a computer-accessible file,which may be transmitted to other computing devices or stored in acloud-storage component for other users to access and evaluate.

In case either the best-case particle cost or the average case cost isabove the tolerance, the planning system 50 may perform anotheriteration and proceed to block 130. At block 130, the planning system 50may determine whether a convergence has been reached within a predefinedN_(Init) ^(S) threshold. If the predefined threshold has not been met,the planning system 50 may return to block 118. However, if thepredefined threshold has been met, the PSO algorithm may be strugglingto reach the optimal solution. In such a case, the planning system mayproceed to block 132.

For the purpose of avoiding sticking into a local optimum as typicallyencountered with gradient-free algorithms, the planning system 50 may,at block 132, perform a smart restart scheme. The smart restart schememay augment the PSO algorithm to empower and motivate the update of theparticles in the search space. This smart restart works in a way that itpasses the best particle result into all the particles every 50iterations. As a result, the update boosts the search effort done by thedifferent particles and saves of the time and number of iterations toreach convergence.

As mentioned above with respect to block 118, FIG. 7 illustrates amethod 140 for performing the clustering operation described in themethod 110. Like the method 110, the following description of the method140 is described as being performed by the planning system 50. However,it should be understood that any suitable computing system may performthe method 140. Additionally, although the method 140 is described in aparticular order, it should be noted that the method 110 may beperformed in any suitable order.

As will be described below, clustering the nodes together may involve aniterative process that groups nodes in logical layer l to theappropriate nodes in layer l+1, l=0, . . . , N_(l)−1, accounting for thecapacity of the corresponding nodes. As such, the clustering process maybe performed sequentially starting from the lower layer up to the upperlayer, starting with layer l=0 and moving upward. Upon getting theappropriate cluster, the clustering algorithm updates the PSO optimizeralgorithm with these clusters, and the PSO optimizer algorithm (e.g.,application executed via the planning system 50) may be updated with thenumber of nodes in each layer. Nodes with empty cluster lists may not beused in determining the total cost calculation.

Referring now to FIG. 7 , at block 142, the planning system 50 mayinitialize a clustering algorithm being executed by receiving datarelated to nodes in a particular layer l. The layer l may be receivedvia user input or may be identified as the lowest value of each of thelayers 1.

At block 144, the planning system 50 may calculate Euclidean Distancebetween each node in a particular layer 1 and nodes in an adjacent layerl+1. Here, the planning system 50 may calculate the Euclidean distancefrom each of the nodes in layer l to all the nodes in layer l+1 andstore the results in a distance matrix.

At block 146, the planning system 50 may rank the calculated distancesbetween the nodes of the adjacent layers. That is, after populating thedistance matrix and before assigning the appropriate clusters, theplanning system 50 may rank the distance for each node's row in layer lto all the nodes in layer l+1 in ascending order to facilitate andprepare for groups formation.

At block 148, the planning system 50 may assign nodes to the certainclusters. After ranking the distance matrix, the planning system 50 maygroup each node in layer l into the appropriate node (e.g., cluster) oflayer l+1. If the nearest node in layer l+1 has no capacity to include arespective node, the planning system 50 may consider the next node inlayer l+1 (e.g., the second near node) until the node in layer l isgrouped into a node in layer l+1.

At block 150, the planning system 50 may update the cluster list beinggenerated at block 146. Indeed, each time a node in layer l+1 isassigned a new node from layer l into its group/cluster (as described inthe previous step), the planning system 50 may update the correspondingnode's cluster list and reduce the available capacity of this node by 1.

At block 152, the planning system 50 may iteratively check each layer l.That is, the planning system 50 may check the different layers of thelogical layers 70 for the proposed hydrocarbon site 10 to determinewhether each layer l has been considered within the clustering scheme.If each layer 1 has not been considered, the planning system 50 maycontinue to block 154 and move to evaluate the next layer l+1. As such,the planning system 50 may then return to block 144 and perform themethod 140 for the next layer l+1. However, if the planning system 50has checked each layer of the logical layers 70, the planning system 50may finalize the clustering to include the grouped nodes identifiedusing the method 140 and pass the finalized results to the PSO optimizeralgorithm to continue the optimization process. The planning system 50may store the clustered nodes in the storage component 58 (or any othersuitable storage), such that the clustered nodes may be processed atblock 120.

By employing the map-based algorithm proposed in the methods above, theplanning system 50 may have several competitive-advantages over otherplanning operations. For example, the present embodiments addresstopological complexities (e.g., valleys and mountains), accounts forprohibited areas (e.g., conservation areas and private land fields) andsupports flexibility of having different logical layers (e.g. wells,drilling centers, gathering centers, central processing facility) ondifferent physical layers (different maps with different elevations andconstraints). Additionally, with respect to handling cost variations,the present embodiments may include considering diverse cost-based mapsin the modeling course to characterize different possible costs addedfor the applied facility placement optimization, which may be integratedwith the corresponding A* search algorithm for the pipeline planningscheme. The map may be similarly changed into the corresponding costgraph, as discussed below, to precisely approximate the cost of thecorresponding facility system.

Additionally, the present embodiments described above may be employed tooptimize platforms' locations and the wells to platforms connections,which corresponds to control variable costs in field developmentplanning in terms of both drilling cost and enhanced hydrocarbonrecovery. That is, the optimization problem solved above includes anobjective function based on the cumulative well-platform distance, henceminimizing total well tubing, risers, and pipelines length. As a result,the present embodiments may include minimizing the drilling cost andinvestment related to the distances, as well as enhancing theproductivity of the reservoir. That is, the productivity of wells andhence of the reservoir is affected by the well tubing, risers, andpipelines length through the associated hydrostatic pressure drop in theproduction system. Consequently, for a given pipeline slope, the shorterthe distances, the lower the pressure drop, and hence the higher thewell productivity. On the other hand, steep pipelines undergosignificant flow assurance issues which result in high wellhead pressurelimits and, hence, reduced well productivity. Each of these factors maybe accounted for using the techniques described above via the cost dataassociated with each piece of equipment and the evaluation operationsdescribed above.

Keeping the foregoing in mind, the present embodiments described abovehold distinct advantages over other planning methodologies. Indeed,other solutions for field development optimization may be divided intotwo categories: 1) gradient-based (e.g., Conjugate gradient, Newton's,and steepest descent methods), which require computation of the gradientof the objective function and 2) stochastic gradient-free such asparticle swarm optimization (PSO), simulated annealing and geneticalgorithm (GA). Gradient-based methods are not commonly used in fielddevelopment planning optimization problems due to their need to becontinuously differentiable, which is not characteristic of non-smoothproblems such as well and platform placement problems.

Gradient-free methods, however, have been used by various optimizationschemes in oil and gas applications. For example, stochastic algorithmsacquire their robustness of overcoming premature converging (localoptima) from their inherent randomness. Another feature of these methodsis their capability to address a wide range of optimization problemsirrespective of their complexity. Stochastic optimization methods can besimply modified, tuned, and assisted by other optimizers to enhancetheir performance, thus work in a hybrid manner.

Other techniques such as a hybrid evolutionary optimization scheme, theblack hole particle swarm optimization (BHPSO) technique, techniquesthat combine both simulated annealing algorithms for facility layoutoptimization and fuzzy theory for linguistic patterns, and the like lackthe computational efficiency of the techniques described herein. Thatis, the other methodologies identify solutions using more time andprocessing power as compared to the techniques described herein.

Moreover, the presently disclosed techniques provide improved analysisover other techniques that do not account for different topologicalcomplexities (e.g., valleys, mountains, faults). In addition, the othertechniques do not account for obstacles avoidance including prohibitedareas and environmentally sensitive regions (e.g., conservation areas,private land fields, rivers).

In this regard, the A* scheme may be utilized with the PSO algorithm totake such topological complexities into account when determiningpipeline placement 96. As described above, in some embodiments, theplanning system 50 may assume that well trajectories 86 or pipelines 28are straight lines (e.g., Euclidean distance), which may increase thespeed of computation but reduce accuracy of the objective function.Alternatively, the presently disclosed embodiments present a modularPSO-based scheme for component placement optimization that may beintegrated with the innovative A* scheme for pipeline layout planning.The PSO algorithm may provide superior results in terms of both 1)convergence time and 2) objective function value. Moreover, employingthe A* search algorithm for pipeline placement 96 incorporates the powerof heuristic functions to attain an optimal solution using the shortestpossible time. This embraced heuristic function convey with thespecifications and constraints applicable to realistic pipeline layoutscenarios to smooth the search practice and, hence, reduces thenecessary computational-time while accounting for topologicalcomplexities.

Topological complexity and prohibited areas/obstacles avoidance may beaccounted for through a map-based approach. To help illustrate the A*algorithm, FIG. 8 is an example method 160 of utilizing a map-basedscheme for determining the optimized route for pipelines 28 of ahydrocarbon site 10. In some embodiments, pipeline planning andplacement can be represented as a path planning problem taking intoaccount the topology of the surroundings. Although the followingdescription of the method 160 is described as being performed by theplanning system 50, it should be understood that any suitable computingsystem may perform the method 160. Additionally, although the method 160is described in a particular order, it should be noted that the method160 may be performed in any suitable order.

Referring now to FIG. 8 , at block 162, the planning system 50 mayreceive one or more surface maps, such that the planning system 50 mayanalyze the terrain. The surface maps may include topological orgeographic maps that include data related to terrain or geologicalfeatures that are present within an area in which the placement ofpipelines is being considered.

At block 164, the planning system 50 may transform the surface map intoa corresponding cost graph. The cost graph may assign resource costs forplacing pipelines 28 in certain areas due to the terrain. In someembodiments, the resource costs may be stored in a database or databasestructure that may be organized based on various geological or terrainfeatures that may be present in the surface maps. These costs may bedefined within the databases based on previous hydrocarbon site costdata or estimated based on construction costs associated with aparticular terrain or geographic layout (e.g., cost to build per squarefoot in various terrains).

At block 166, the planning system 50 may receive the start point andtarget point for the pipelines 28 via user input. At block 168, theplanning system 50 may calculate the shortest A* path. The planningsystem 50 may determine the shortest A* path, which may correspond tothe shortest path between the start point and the target point whileaccounting for the cost graph that corresponds to building the pipelinein the respective area. Additional details with regard to utilizing theA* algorithm in accordance with the embodiments described herein will bediscussed further below with respect to FIG. 12 .

In some embodiments, the surface maps may include structured maps madeof quadrilateral grid blocks (e.g., mesh) that may define thetopological parameters for respective portions of the surface maps.These structured maps may then be used to determine cost graph maps,from which the pipeline placements 96 may be made. Other mesh, such as atriangular mesh, can be similarly adopted to potentially enablerefinement in special topologically complex areas. For example, in areaswith relatively small passage ways or highly variable terrain comparedto the grid size, different or smaller mesh components may be utilized.Furthermore, in some embodiments, the resolution of the plannedpipelines 28 may be dependent on the resolution of the initial map. Forexample, maps with lower resolution may result in pipelines with lowerresolution and/or longer segments. To help illustrate, FIG. 9 is anexample topology 180 having a pipeline starting point 182 and a pipelinetarget point 184. From the top view 186 and the cross-sectional view 188of the topology 180, terrain 190 (e.g., a mountain or hill) and aprohibited area 192 (e.g., body of water) are exampled.

Additionally, a Euclidean path 194 (e.g., straight path), a firstcandidate path 196, and a second candidate path 198 are depicted. Asdiscussed above, the Euclidean path 194 may not take into accountprohibited areas 192 or terrain 190 and, therefore, may not be feasibleeconomically or physically. Furthermore, candidate paths 196, 198 may beevaluated based on a map of costs associated with the terrain 190 and/orprohibited areas 192. For example, a map 200, as in FIG. 10 , may beutilized to associate costs 202 with different topological regions. Asshould be appreciated, the costs may correspond to any cost associatedwith placing pipeline 28 in the respective areas and may include coststo buy the land, build the pipeline 28, maintain the pipeline 28, andthe like. As discussed above, the mesh may be broken down intoquadrilateral blocks for expedited computation.

Moreover, each block of the mesh may have an associated cost 202 thatvaries based on properties of the terrain 190. Moreover, differentpipeline directions (e.g., horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) may alsohave varied costs associated with them such as due to supplementalequipment that may be used to pump fluids within the pipeline 28. Forexample, diagonal connections may have an additional or multiplier cost202 greater than horizontal connections, such as due to extra pipelength, turns, pumps, etc.

With regard to addressing topological complexity, the topology 180 mayprecisely characterize the placed facility optimal system. That is,referring back to block 164 of FIG. 8 , the map 200 may be transformedto a cost graph 210, as shown in FIG. 11 . The topological complexities(e.g., valleys, faults, hills) may be characterized in the map andprecisely converted into the adequate cost graph 210. Likewise,prohibited areas 192 may be also characterized by merely eliminatingthese from the cost graph 210. These prohibited areas 192 may be,otherwise, penalized in a way to avoid them as much as possible toreduce the corresponding cost.

Referring to block 164 of the method 160 in FIG. 8 , transforming thetopology 180 (e.g., surface map) into a cost graph 210 may be performedusing a static cost map transformation or a graph transformation. Thestatic map transformation is performed on the topology map by applying,to each grid-cell, Equation (4):

$\begin{matrix}{{Cost}_{cell} = \frac{\overset{n}{\sum\limits_{i = 0}}{{cost}\left( {{cell},{adj}_{i}} \right)}}{n}} & (4)\end{matrix}$

Referring to Equation (4), cell is the grid cell for which the staticcost is calculated; adj_(i) is the set of grid cells that are adjacentto cell; n is the number of grid cells; and cost(x, y) is the estimatecost to build a pipeline segment between cells x and y. In someembodiments, the number of grid cells may be eight cells in the case ofa quadrilateral mesh. Such a transformation converts the topology 180into a cost graph 210 where the cost of building on each grid cell isestimated to be the average cost of building pipeline segments betweenthis cell and all other adjacent cells. Each grid cell may berepresented by its approximated cost 202 independently of the othercells on the cost graph 210 and the direction and position of thepipeline 28 being built on it.

On the other hand, a graph transformation may take into account the pathand direction of a planned pipeline 28. In general, a graph may includea data structure that represents a list of interconnected nodes. Eachconnection (e.g., edge) may annotate the cost 202 of building thecorresponding pipeline segment. To transform the topology 180 into acost graph 210, we first create the graph where each vertex/noderepresents a grid cell on the map 200. Then, each node (e.g., Node₁) isconnected to each of its adjacent nodes (e.g., Node₂) using adirectional edge with weight equal to the estimated cost of building apipeline from Node₁ to Node₂. The estimated cost of building a pipelinesegment between two nodes is calculated using a cost function that canaccommodate various factors when calculating the cost of pipelines(length, pressure drops, steepness/inclination, etc.). In someembodiments, the heuristic function may be estimated based on a reducednumber of factors such as the length of the required pipeline 28 and theinclination of the built section to reduce computation complexity 104.

As shown in FIG. 11 , each grid cell is translated into a graph node 212(e.g., vertex) and is connected to each of its adjacent nodes throughedges. Both the cost of acquiring the grid cell and the cost of buildinga connection are preserved. The developed A* algorithm may then traversethe developed cost graph 210 searching for the optimal path for eachpipeline 28 given the pipeline's corresponding starting point 182 andtarget point 184.

As discussed above, after generating the cost graph 210, the planningsystem 50 may utilize the A* algorithm as mentioned with respect toblock 168. In general, the A* algorithm is a graph traversal algorithmused in various fields of computer science and artificial intelligencedue to its completeness, optimality, and optimal efficiency. The A*algorithm uses a priority queue to assess potential paths when searchingfor the shortest path and will also stop when the first potential pathreaches the destination. The A* algorithm uses a heuristic function thatasses each node before adding it to the potential path and estimates theremaining cost of building a pipeline 28 from the next potential node tothe destination. Method 220 of FIG. 12 is an example process for findingthe shortest path using the A* algorithm. At block 222 vertexes C may beiteratively defined along with a destination d, and the path cost may bedetermined at block 224 by Equation (5):

g(v)=Σ_(S) ^(v)edge_(i)   (5)

Referring to Equation (5), s is the starting point 182 and edge_(i) isan incremental connection between the starting point 182 and a vertex,v. By using the path costs for different vertexes, a heuristic function,h(v), may be determined to estimate the cost from the vertex to thedestination, d, which may also be the target point 184. Whenimplemented, the heuristic function may reduce the time and processingresources such as memory used in reaching the optimal solution whilemaintaining accuracy and precision. In some embodiments, the heuristicfunction may be modeled by a cost function that calculates the costbetween two adjacent grid cells to estimate the cost of building apipeline between any point along the path and the destination.

As discussed above, the benefits of implementing a map-based scheme forpipeline placement 96 and/or the facility placement optimization includeaddressing topological complexity, handling cost variations, providingextensible and flexible solutions, and the like. As should beappreciated, the planning system 50 may use the above methods inconjunction with one another or separately (e.g., independently).Furthermore, the above methods may be used simultaneous with each otherto determine simultaneous analyses 102.

Returning to FIG. 4 , as discussed above, the modular nature of thedescribed methods allows for components of the hydrocarbon site 10 suchas well placement 92, facility placement 94, pipeline placement 96,and/or well trajectory design 98 to be optimized simultaneously orindependently or a combination thereof. As used herein, modular analysistechniques include performing various tasks during different timeperiods or separately from others. By way of example, as shown in FIG. 4, Scenario 1 includes determining well placement 92, facility placement94, pipeline placement 96, and/or well trajectory design 98 in asequential order according to a modular approach. In addition, Scenario2 includes determining well placement 92 independently, facilityplacement 94 and pipeline placement 96 simultaneously, and welltrajectory design 98 independently according to a modular approach.

Additionally, the algorithms implemented in the proposed framework ofthe planning system 50 break organizational silos between what have beentraditionally separate domains, and provide multiple divisions of ahydrocarbon enterprise (e.g., reservoir specialists, drillingspecialists, facility specialists, and economists) with a sharedplanning platform. For example, traditionally, different divisions orgroups may govern respective aspects or components in the planning of ahydrocarbon site 10. However, in optimizing one aspect or component,other aspects may deviate from their own optimization and/or be renderedunviable. The planning system 50 may provide unified modular system fordetermining optimized hydrocarbon site layouts in an efficient manner.

Moreover, additional or fewer components may be integrated into theoptimization framework depending on their applicability in differentpotential onshore and offshore oil and gas field development projects.The planning system 50 may be modular and flexible and allow formultiple layers of granularity and, hence, a spectrum of solutions withdifferent trade-offs between accuracy of optimization of layout andcomputation efficiency, which may be specified by a user. In someembodiments, the planning system 50 may provide optimal well placement94 (e.g., well count, location, etc.), optimal number of nodes atdifferent facility layers (e.g., number of drill centers, gatheringcenters, etc.), optimal layout of pipelines 28, and optimal welltrajectory 86, each honoring the system constraints. In some scenarios,for example depending on the size of the hydrocarbon site 10 and/or thenumber of wells 12, the computational complexity 104 may be reduced toreduce computation time and/or resources. As such, in some embodiments,the layout of part or all the building blocks (e.g., components) of thehydrocarbon site 10 are addressed sequentially rather than concurrently,and the level of granularity between a sequential solution, as inScenario 1, and a fully integrated solution, as in Scenario 4, may beset by a user. As discussed above, although four scenarios are shown asexample cases for the planning system 50, and suitable components orgrouping of components may be optimized simultaneously or independentlyproviding for new opportunities for cost reduction and driving valueoptimization.

Of the exampled scenarios 90, Scenario 1, having sequentially determinedcomponents, may have the lowest computational complexity 104 and,therefore, be the quickest to calculate. To help illustrate, FIG. 13illustrates a flow chart of a method 228 corresponding to the generalworkflow of Scenario 1. As also shown in Scenario 1 of correspondingFIG. 4 , the method 228 may include, independently and sequentially,reading and/or receiving input data 100 at block 112, determining wellplacement 92, determining facility placement 94, determining pipelineplacement 96, and determining well trajectory design 98. As discussedabove, independent analyses may use any suitable placement algorithm,which may include a PSO algorithm, the A* algorithm, or otheroptimization means.

Furthermore, in some embodiments, the method 228 may include determiningthe cost of the identified wells 12 (e.g., block 230) and determiningwhether to perform dynamic simulation of hydrocarbon production (e.g.,block 232) and, hence, calculation of revenues. With dynamic simulationdisabled, feasible well designs may lead to a calculation of expectedhydrocarbon site expenditure such, as capital expenditure (CAPEX) (e.g.,block 234). When dynamic simulation is enabled, a reservoir simulatormay be executed by the planning system 50 (e.g., block 236) and theexpected revenues from the reservoir may be calculated (e.g., block238). In this way, the expected expenditure calculation may be combinedwith the expected revenues and well costs to calculate a net presentvalue (NPV) or other economic driving value (e.g., block 240).

Furthermore, after determining the well trajectory design 98, thefeasibility of the wells 12 may be determined at block 242. If theconstraints of the planning system 50 (e.g., as input by a user and/oras dictated by the topology 180) do not yield feasible wells 12, theplanning system 50 may proceed to block 244 and provide a notificationthat the input data does not yield a feasible design. In someembodiments, the planning system 50 may analyze the parameters andprocesses performed in determining the well placements 92, facilityplacements 94, pipeline placements 96, and well trajectory designs 98 todetermine certain changes to the constraints that may allow for afeasible design to be generated.

As discussed above, the facility model may be represented by multiplelayers, each containing multiple nodes (e.g. well entry points, drillingcenters 76, gathering centers 80, and/or central processing facilities84) such as in the PSO algorithm. As such, the PSO algorithm is anobjective-function-agnostic optimizer that abstracts internalcalculations and allows for easier integration with other algorithms andhigher speed evaluations. Moreover, layers may represent sets of nodesof the same type, and a connection between layers may be a pipeline 28or a well trajectory 86 (e.g., the trajectory from the drilling 76center to the well's reservoir section entry point). In Scenario 1,while placing the facility nodes, pipelines 28 and well trajectories 86may be simplified to Euclidean distances or may use the A* algorithm toaccount for topological complexities and associated constraints such asprohibited areas. Facility nodes may account for such complexities aspart of the PSO algorithm.

To help further illustrate, FIG. 14 is a method 250 for performing PSOoperations to determine facility placements 94 in accordance withScenario 1. As should be appreciated, one or more of the blocks of FIGS.14-19, and 21-23 may be similar to those of previously discussed methodsor each other. For brevity, repeated blocks may not be discussed again.In addition, although the methods described in FIGS. 14-19 and 21-23 aredescribed in a particular order and as performed by the planning system50, it should be noted that the methods described below may be performedin any suitable order and by any suitable computing device.

Continuing with method 250 of FIG. 14 , the planning system 50 mayinitialize by receiving input data 100 at block 112, initializingparameters and nodes at block 114 and randomizing node locations atblock 116, as described above with respect to FIG. 5 . The planningsystem 50 may also cluster nodes from lower layers by connecting them tonodes in upper layers at block 118, as described above with respect toFIG. 5 . For example, wells 12 may be connected to drilling centers 76,and drilling centers 76 may be connected to gathering centers 80, etc.Following clustering, each particle evaluates the objective functionbased on the parameters provided by PSO during cost calculation at block120, as described above with respect to FIG. 5 . The evaluationsreturned from each particle may be compared amongst each other and withprevious iterations. The local best solution (e.g., for each particle)and the global best solution are updated at block 122, as describedabove with respect to FIG. 5 . Furthermore, the location of eachparticle in the PSO algorithm for the next iteration may be updatedbased on the variables at block 124, as described above with respect toFIG. 5 .

Furthermore, although discussed herein as utilizing the PSO algorithm,other algorithms, such as clustering or a hybrid PSO/clusteringalgorithm, may be used. In this case, the planning system 50 may updatethe clustering and/or the hybrid PSO/clustering algorithm at blocks 252and 254, respectively. A new set of node locations is thus obtained foreach particle and ready for the next iteration in case convergencecriteria are not met at block 126. If a maximum number of iterations isreached at block 130, the planning system 50 may implement a smartrestart at block 132, as described above in FIG. 5 .

Referring back to block 126, in some embodiments, the convergencecriterion is based on the difference between the cost of the best-caseparticle (e.g., lowest cost) and that of the average case being within aprescribed tolerance. In any case, after the convergence criteria aremet at block 126, the planning system 50 may proceed to block 128 andoutput the optimized solution for the facility nodes.

After facility nodes are placed, pipeline placement 96 and welltrajectory design 98 may be determined. Pipeline layout optimization mayuse the A* algorithm, as described above. However, the pipeline layoutoptimization determined using the A* algorithm may not lead to anoptimal solution that minimizes the total length as it is performedindependently relative to the facility placement 94. At the end of theoptimization, the planning system 50 may return the number of nodes ineach layer, well trajectory designs 98, pipeline placements 96, and thetotal cost of the facility. In case a feasible facility cannot begenerated from the given configuration, or a number of wells cannot bedrilled within the specified constraints, an error message may bedisplayed with or without a remediation solution. Being the leastcomplex of the scenarios 90, Scenario 1 may use relatively fewercomputing and power resources as compared to other scenarios 90, but itmay also lead to a sub-optimal solution as compared to the otherscenarios 90.

Scenario 2 incorporates a simultaneous analysis 102 of both facilityplacement 94 and pipeline placement 96, as shown in the method 260 ofFIG. 15 . In such a case, both facility nodes and pipelines 28 aresimultaneously placed on one or more topological maps while accountingfor potential prohibited and penalized areas. Furthermore, pipelineplacement 96 may be incorporated into the iterative loop for the PSOalgorithm, as described below in the method 270 of FIG. 16 . In someembodiments, the pipeline placement 96 may utilize either Euclideanestimations of pipeline distances, the A* algorithm, or any othersuitable algorithm within the PSO loop to simultaneously optimize thefacility placement 94 with the pipeline placement 96.

Additionally, in Scenario 3, another degree of integration and,consequently, increased computational complexity 104 may be introduced,as compared to Scenarios 1 and 2, by adding well trajectory design 98 tothe simultaneous analysis 102, as shown in the method 280 of FIG. 17 .Furthermore, FIG. 18 illustrates a method 290 for the simultaneousanalysis 102 of facility placement 94, pipeline placement, 96, and welltrajectory design 98. Unlike Scenarios 1 and 2, where wells 12 arechecked for their feasibility and well trajectory design 98independently, in Scenario 3, the well trajectory design 98 is part ofthe PSO loop of the facility placement 94 and the pipeline placement 96.In some embodiments, when analyzing well trajectory design 98 as part ofthe PSO loop, the feasibility of the wells 12 may be checked at block242, and thus may be part of the iterative loop. For example, in caseone or more wells 12 are unfeasible, the objective function may bepenalized at block 292, and the total cost of the hydrocarbon site 10should increase to reflect its unfeasibility. Penalization may be usedin non-gradient optimization algorithms, such as the PSO algorithm. Forexample, penalization may include modifying some variable to force thealgorithm to diverge from an undesirable solution, while prevent thealgorithm from converging to a final solution prematurely.

For example, in some embodiments the penalization may be a dynamicpenalization that changes the penalty of unfeasible wells 12 based onthe cost of other feasible wells 12 and the cost of drilling centers 76.In this technique, the penalty of an unfeasible well is calculated viaEquation (6):

Penalty_(unfeasiblewell)=max(2×Cost_(well), 1.5×Cost_(drillingcenter))  (6)

In practice, the penalty may provide a cost that is higher than theactual drilling of the well 12, if it was feasible, and higher than thecost for creating a drilling center 76 in case the well did not share adrilling center 76 with any other wells 12. Accordingly, unfeasiblewells 12 may generally cost more than a feasible well 12 to reduce thelikelihood of selecting an unfeasible well. In some embodiments, thepenalty may be updated at each iteration at the start of employing thePSO algorithm and may eventually stabilize after costs are established.

The simultaneous analyses 102 of the facility placement 94, pipelineplacement 96, and well trajectory design 98 may provide a high-accuracymodel for the hydrocarbon site 10 as compared to the results ofScenarios 1 and 2, and may include solutions optimized to handlemultiple different complexities. Furthermore, as with Scenarios 1 and 2,the pipeline placement 96 may be estimated by Euclidean distances (e.g.,for faster runtime) or the A* algorithm for increased accuracy.Furthermore, in some embodiments, a smart selection algorithm may adjustthe frequency of high-accuracy, more realistic modelling of connectionssuch as the A* algorithm. In other words, the smart selection algorithmmay delay the accurate modelling until the later stages of theoptimization—when the final layout of the hydrocarbon site 10 isstarting to form—and performs the modelling on a fraction of theparticles. Both the frequency of the modelling and the threshold atwhich the modelling starts may be specified by the user. Such anapproach may allow for granular accuracy and efficiency depending onavailable computational time and resources. For example, the finalsolution can generate models in seconds for quick prototyping, ascompared to hours or day for building more accurate simulations.

Additionally or alternatively, in Scenario 4, well placement 92 may beintegrated into the simultaneous analysis 102 of facility placement 94,pipeline placement 96, and well trajectory design 98 as provided in themethod 300 of FIG. 19 . Although additional components may be added tothe simultaneous analysis 102, the integrated solution of Scenario 4 mayprovide the most comprehensive and/or the most optimal solution for thehydrocarbon site 10. Moreover, Scenario 4 may also be the mostcomputationally demanding scenario 90. The integrated solution of theplanning system 50 combines two-optimization processes characterized bytwo main iterative loops that work towards optimizing the NPV of thehydrocarbon site 10. The major loop (e.g., outer loop) of Scenario 4 maybe governed by a black hole particle swarm optimization algorithm(BHPSO) that may be used to optimize well placement while the minor loop(e.g., inner loop) may be used to optimize the simultaneous analysis 102of the well trajectory design 98, facility placement 94, and pipelineplacement 96. In some embodiments, the minor loop may generally consistof the method 290 of FIG. 18 .

Before proceeding, it should be noted that the following description ofthe method 300 for determining the integrated solution of Scenario 4, asdepicted in FIG. 19 , may be performed by the planning system 50 or anyother suitable computing device. Referring now to FIG. 19 , afterreading the input data 100 at block 112, the method 300 may enter themajor loop where, for each “particle,” the BHPSO specifies the decisionvariables for well placement and, accordingly, places the wells 12 inthe reservoir, which may include the “heel” and/or the “toe” of thewells 12 in case of horizontal wells as discussed further below. As aresult, multiple reservoir simulation models may be generatedcorresponding to each PSO particle, such that each model may have adifferent set of wells. Then, every particle may enter the minor loopfor simultaneously determining facility placement 94, pipeline placement96, and well trajectory design 98. For example, the minor loop maygenerally perform the method 290 of FIG. 18 and output an optimizedsolution for the facility placement 94, pipeline placement 96 betweenthe facility nodes, and the well trajectory design 98 from the well heelto the facility nodes (e.g., drilling center 76). Furthermore, theplanning system 50 may run the minor loop for each of the well placementPSO particles in parallel to optimize run time. For example,multiprocessor computers may take further advantage of the parallelprocessing to reduce resource consumption and/or speed up computationtime.

As with Scenario 3, if a well 12 is not feasible, the PSO algorithm maybe penalized to avoid unfeasible solutions at block 302. For example,upon completion of the minor loop, a test may be performed to assess thewell trajectory feasibility for each particle. In case there are anyunfeasible wells 12 for a specific particle, the particle may bepenalized by increasing the associated cost and/or allocating it a zeroNPV to eliminate it from contributing to the next generation ofparticles. On the other hand, if all well trajectories 86 are feasiblefor the specific particle, the CAPEX for the facility placement 94,pipeline placement 96, and well trajectory design 98 may be calculatedat block 234, and the associated development scenario may be simulatedat block 236. Furthermore, the NPV may be computed at block 240 based onthe generated CAPEX at block 234, the well costs at block 230, and theestimated revenues at block 238 from the simulation determined at block236. Further, after the simulation runs of the BHPSO particles arecompleted (which in turn a parallel task), the BHPSO algorithm mayupdate the optimization parameters at block 122 and update the decisionvariables at block 124 for the next iteration of the major loop.

Before moving to the next iteration of the major loop, the BHPSOalgorithm may check for convergence by computing a difference betweenthe average NPV and the maximum NPV of the particles at block 126, orcheck if the number of iterations has exceeded a predefined maximum atblock 130. Convergence may imply that an optimal NPV has been identifiedwith well trajectories 86 that are feasible. However, if no convergenceis reached within the predefined maximum number of iterations, the majorloop may terminate and output a non-convergence alert and/or the mostrecent (e.g., best-found) solution.

As should be appreciated, Scenario 4 may utilize Euclideanapproximations for the pipeline placements 96 and/or well trajectorydesigns 98 or the A* algorithm for increased accuracy. Furthermore, insome embodiments, Scenario 4 may include the smart selection algorithmand adjust the frequency of high-accuracy modelling of connections suchas the A* algorithm. Moreover, as discussed above, in some embodiments,different variants of the example scenarios 90 may be utilized (e.g.,for tuning efficiency) including cases where well trajectory design 98and/or pipeline placement 96 take place in individually (e.g., postprocessing), leading to hybrid scenarios between Scenario 3 and Scenario4. Additionally or alternatively, variants of the scenarios 90 mayoptimize well trajectory 86 in its own minor loop (e.g., as a nested PSOalgorithm within a major loop such as that of Scenario 4) orindependently as its own PSO algorithm or other suitable algorithm.

For example, FIG. 20 illustrates an example horizontal well 310 having aheel 312, E, a toe 314, T, and a well trajectory 86 between a drillingcenter 76 and the heel 312. In some embodiments, the well trajectorydesign 98 may be analyzed using a Bézier curve based method. Forexample, the well trajectory design 98 may be given by the expressionB(B_(x),B_(y),B_(y)), U ∈ [0,1] by solving for Equation (7):

B(U)=S(1−U)³+3(1−U)²UCs+3(1−U)U²Ce+U³E   (7)

Referring to Equation (7), the interval [0,1] corresponds to points [S,E] in the three dimensional space of the horizontal well 310.Additionally, S(D_(C) _(x) , D_(C) _(y) , S_(z)) and E(E_(x), E_(y),E_(z)) depict the kick-off/source point and the target/end point,respectively. The total length of the well trajectory from D_(C) to Emay be minimized while honoring the constraints of:

-   -   B is tangent to SC_(S) at S and to EC_(e) at E;    -   Both curve and its derivatives are continuous at S and E; and    -   Dog-leg severity (DLS).

Furthermore, optimization of the well trajectory 86 while honoring theabove constraints takes place by changing the location of C_(S) (_(s)_(x) , C_(s) _(y) , C_(s) _(z) ) and C_(e) (C_(e) _(x) , C_(e) _(y) ,C_(e) _(z) ) to satisfy Equation (8) and Equation (9):

C_(s)=ds.t_(s) +S   (8)

C_(e)=de.t_(e) +E   (9)

Referring to Equation (8) and Equation (9), is is the unit tangentvector at S (SC_(S) ); {right arrow over (t_(e))} is the unit tangentvector at E (EC_(e) ); ds is an arbitrary scalar parameter to determinethe position of the attractor point C_(S); de is an arbitrary scalarparameter to determine the position of the attractor point C_(e); andS_(z), is the z component of S within a prescribed range [S_(z) ₁ ,S_(z) ₂ ]. Additionally, the well trajectory length may be minimized bychanging the location of S_(z), C_(s), and C_(e) while honoring theabove-mentioned constraints. This can take place iteratively or, moreefficiently, using an optimizer with a minimum well trajectory length asobjective function. To help illustrate, FIG. 21 includes a flowchart ofa method 320 summarizing the optimization of well trajectory design 98using another PSO algorithm.

In some embodiments, the well trajectory design 98 takes placeiteratively, such as in the integrated solutions of Scenarios 3 and 4.As such, the planning system 50 may optimize well trajectory design 98independently or as part of a simultaneous analysis 102. For example, insome embodiments, the method 320 may include receiving or reading inputdata 100 at block 112 and initializing parameters for each particle ofthe PSO at block 114. Additionally, the trajectory for each particle ofthe PSO may be generated at block 322, and the dog-leg severity (DLS)may be checked relative to a threshold value (e.g., a preprogrammed oruser set threshold value) at block 324. If the DLS is greater than somethreshold for a particular particle, the total length associated withthe candidate well trajectory 86 may be set to infinity or some suitablehigh value to penalize the candidate well trajectory 86 at block 326. Onthe other hand, if the DLS is within an acceptable range (e.g., lessthan the threshold), the total length of the candidate well trajectory86 may be calculated at block 328. Further, if convergence criteria arenot met, the PSO may be updated and new candidate well trajectories 86may be generated. However, if convergence criteria are met, the well(s)with their associated well trajectories 86 may be checked forfeasibility at block 242. The well(s) 12 may return as not feasible or,if they are feasible, the optimal well trajectory 86 may be output.

In general, the planning system 50 may result in a set of feasible wells12 at some computational cost. However, in some instances, unfeasiblewell trajectories 86 may emerge, for example due to a breach in a dogleg severity constraint, a total depth constraint, or both. In such acase, an automated heuristic workflow such as in the methods 330 and 334of FIGS. 22 and 23 may be applied to address well unfeasibility.

Referring now to FIG. 22 , the planning system 50 may receive prescribeddrilling centers 76 and well placements 94 at block 332. As such, theplanning system 50 may iterate a loop that goes through each well 12 to“fix” the unfeasible ones. For example, prior to entering the loop, eachwell 12 may be set to unfeasible at block 334. The loop may begin at afirst well 12 (e.g., block 336) and check its feasibility at block 338.If a well 12 is found feasible, the planning system 50 may check if eachreceived well 12 are determined to be feasible at block 242. If not, thenumber of iterations may be checked (e.g., against a threshold level ofiterations) at block 340. If a maximum threshold of iterations has beenreached, the “fix” of unfeasible well trajectories 86 may be determinedas unsuccessful, which may be accompanied by an error message and/or arecommendation. If the maximum threshold of iterations has not beenreached, another well 12 of the received wells may be selected (e.g.,via block 342) and tested for feasibility.

Referring back to block 338, if a well 12 is found to not be feasible,the planning system 50 may attempt to rectify it by proceeding to block344, which is expanded upon in FIG. 23 . Referring to FIG. 23 , theplanning system 50 may attempt to optimize the well trajectory 86 atblock 346. After optimizing the well trajectory 86, the well 12 may beevaluated again for feasibility at block 347. If the well 12 isdetermined to be unfeasible at block 347, the planning system 50 maycheck whether another drilling center 76 has available capacity andswitch to the other drilling center at block 348. The well trajectorymay be optimized again at block 349, and the well trajectory, utilizingthe new drilling center 76, may be checked for feasibility at block 350.If the well 12 is not feasible, the planning system 50 may rotate a well12 (e.g., in the case of a horizontal well) at prescribed incrementalangles (e.g. 5, 10, 15, 45, 90 degrees) at block 352. Moreover, therotated well 12 may be located, for instance, on a relatively highcumulative net hydrocarbon thickness on a net hydrocarbon thickness map.After each increment, the well trajectory may be optimized at block 354.

After optimizing the well trajectory at block 354, the planning system50 may proceed to block 356 to again check well feasibility. If the well12 is feasible, the planning system 50 may proceed to block 242 of FIG.22 . However, if the well 12 is not feasible, the planning system 50 mayproceed to block 358 of FIG. 22 and relocate one or more drillingcenters 76 within a threshold area. In this case, the wells 12associated with the relocated drilling center(s) 76 may be set asunfeasible at block 360. As a result, the planning system 50 may returnback to block 336 to recheck the wells 12 at the relocated drillingcenter(s) 76 for feasibility. The planning system 50 may keeprunning/attempting to fix wells 12 until all well trajectories 86 arefeasible or a maximum number of attempts is reached.

Referring back to blocks 347, 350, and 356 of FIG. 23 , if the planningsystem 50 determines that the well is feasible at either of theseblocks, the planning system 50 may proceed to block 242 of FIG. 22 todetermine whether each of the provided wells 12 has been determined tobe feasible. As mentioned above, if the total number of wells are notdetermined to be feasible, the number of iterations may be checked(e.g., against a threshold level of iterations) at block 340. If amaximum threshold of iterations has been reached, the “fix” ofunfeasible well trajectories 86 may be determined as unsuccessful, whichmay be accompanied by an error message and/or a recommendation. If themaximum threshold of iterations has not been reached, another well 12 ofthe received wells may be selected (e.g., via block 342) and tested forfeasibility.

With regard to providing improved extensibility and flexibility, thepresently disclosed techniques provide a capability to augment variousmaps to ease the demonstration of several aspects and provide differentrealistic circumstances for diverse real-life oil and gas fields'facility placement requirements. As such, the user may modify or editthe map data described above to reflect current conditions. That is, theplanning system 50 may enable a user to edit map data to include placingfacility planning nodes of different logical layers on differentphysical layers/horizons. Several horizons may be used by the developedalgorithm and demonstrated into the same graph. As a result, theplanning system 50 enables modular and flexible addition of differentfacility optimization layers without adding simulations or computationsto handle realistic facility placement scenarios. In addition, theplanning system 50 may allow for the integration of different costfactors into the cost function. In addition to the topology map, theplanning system 50 may receive land cost map to approximate the landacquisition cost once placing a facility system. As such, the planningsystem 50 described above provides the capability to straightforwardlyconsider various cost factors permits to generate and test using diversescenarios without having to change the procedure described above andwithout effecting the memory and computational complexity of thedeveloped algorithm. Moreover, the planning system 50 may dynamicallyintegrate more cost factors by receiving additional cost map thatsymbolizes the corresponding cost factor. This flexibility offers thecapability to test diverse complexity levels without additional setupand to examine adding numerous cost factors sensitivity with no need toexpress a cost model to each case.

Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment,” “anembodiment,” “embodiments,” “some embodiments,” “certain embodiments,”or similar language means that a particular feature, structure, orcharacteristic described in connection with the embodiment may beincluded in at least one embodiment of this disclosure. Thus, thesephrases or similar language throughout this specification may, but donot necessarily, all refer to the same embodiment. Although thisdisclosure has been described with respect to specific details, it isnot intended that such details should be regarded as limitations on thescope of this disclosure, except to the extent that they are included inthe accompanying claims.

Additionally, the methods and processes described above may be performedby a processor. Moreover, the term “processor” should not be construedto limit the embodiments disclosed herein to any particular device typeor system. The processor may include a computer system. The computersystem may also include a computer processor (e.g., a microprocessor,microcontroller, digital signal processor, or general-purpose computer)for executing any of the methods and processes described above.

The computer system may further include a memory such as a semiconductormemory device (e.g., a RAM, ROM, PROM, EEPROM, or Flash-ProgrammableRAM), a magnetic memory device (e.g., a diskette or fixed disk), anoptical memory device (e.g., a CD-ROM), a PC card (e.g., PCMCIA card),or other memory device.

Some of the methods and processes described above, can be implemented ascomputer program logic for use with the computer processor. The computerprogram logic may be embodied in various forms, including a source codeform or a computer executable form. Source code may include a series ofcomputer program instructions in a variety of programming languages(e.g., an object code, an assembly language, or a high-level languagesuch as C, C++, or JAVA). Such computer instructions can be stored in anon-transitory computer readable medium (e.g., memory) and executed bythe computer processor. The computer instructions may be distributed inany form as a removable storage medium with accompanying printed orelectronic documentation (e.g., shrink wrapped software), preloaded witha computer system (e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk), or distributedfrom a server or electronic bulletin board over a communication system(e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web).

Alternatively or additionally, the processor may include discreteelectronic components coupled to a printed circuit board, integratedcircuitry (e.g., Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC)),and/or programmable logic devices (e.g., a Field Programmable GateArrays (FPGA)). Any of the methods and processes described above can beimplemented using such logic devices.

While the embodiments set forth in this disclosure may be susceptible tovarious modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments havebeen shown by way of example in the drawings and have been described indetail herein. However, it should be understood that the disclosure isnot intended to be limited to the particular forms disclosed. Thedisclosure is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternativesfalling within the spirit and scope of the disclosure as defined by thefollowing appended claims.

The techniques presented and claimed herein are referenced and appliedto material objects and concrete examples of a practical nature thatdemonstrably improve the present technical field and, as such, are notabstract, intangible or purely theoretical. Further, if any claimsappended to the end of this specification contain one or more elementsdesignated as “means for [perform]ing [a function]. . . ” or “step for[perform]ing [a function]. . . ”, it is intended that such elements areto be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, for any claimscontaining elements designated in any other manner, it is intended thatsuch elements are not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for determining pipeline placement forone or more pipelines between two or more facilities, comprising:receiving, via a processor, input data comprising topological dataassociated with an area and cost data associated with the pipelineplacement in respective portions of the area; determining, via theprocessor, a path between the two or more facilities based on a firstalgorithm and the topological data augmented by the cost data; anddetermining, via the processor, a set of pipeline placements for the oneor more pipelines based on the path.
 2. The method of claim 1, whereindetermining the set of pipeline placements comprises simultaneouslydetermining the set of pipeline placements and a set of facilityplacements for the two or more facilities based on a second algorithm.3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of pipelineplacements comprises simultaneously determining a set of facilityplacements for the two or more facilities, a set of well trajectoriesfor one or more wells, and the set of pipeline placements for the one ormore pipelines based on a second algorithm.
 4. The method of claim 3,wherein the second algorithm comprises a particle swarm optimizationalgorithm.
 5. The method of claim 3, comprising determining, independentof the simultaneous determining, a set of well placements for one ormore wells via a third algorithm.
 6. The method of claim 1, comprisingtransforming a map acquired via the topological data to a cost graphbased on the cost data.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein determiningthe path between the two or more facilities is based on an A* algorithmapplied to the cost graph.
 8. A computer program comprisinginstructions, that when executed by a computer processor of a computingdevice, causes the computing device to: receive, via a processor, inputdata comprising topological data associated with an area and cost dataassociated with the pipeline placement in respective portions of thearea; determine, via the processor, a path between the two or morefacilities based on a first algorithm and the topological data augmentedby the cost data; and determine, via the processor, a set of pipelineplacements for the one or more pipelines based on the path.
 9. Thecomputer program of claim 8, wherein the determination of the set ofpipeline placements comprises simultaneously determining the set ofpipeline placements and a set of facility placements for the two or morefacilities based on a second algorithm.
 10. The computer program ofclaim 8, wherein the determination of the set of pipeline placementscomprises simultaneously determining a set of facility placements forthe two or more facilities, a set of well trajectories for one or morewells, and the set of pipeline placements for the one or more pipelinesbased on a second algorithm.
 11. The computer program of claim 10,wherein the second algorithm comprises a particle swarm optimizationalgorithm.
 12. The computer program of claim 10, wherein theinstructions further include to determine, independent of thesimultaneous determining, a set of well placements for one or more wellsvia a third algorithm.
 13. The computer program of claim 8, comprisingtransforming a map acquired via the topological data to a cost graphbased on the cost data.
 14. The computer program of claim 8, wherein thedetermination of the path between the two or more facilities is based onan A* algorithm applied to the cost graph.
 15. A non-transitorycomputer-readable medium that includes instructions for implementing amethod for determining pipeline placement for one or more pipelinesbetween two or more facilities, comprising: receiving, via a processor,input data comprising topological data associated with an area and costdata associated with the pipeline placement in respective portions ofthe area; determining, via the processor, a path between the two or morefacilities based on a first algorithm and the topological data augmentedby the cost data; and determining, via the processor, a set of pipelineplacements for the one or more pipelines based on the path.
 16. Thenon-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein determiningthe set of pipeline placements comprises simultaneously determining theset of pipeline placements and a set of facility placements for the twoor more facilities based on a second algorithm.
 17. The non-transitorycomputer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein determining the set ofpipeline placements comprises simultaneously determining a set offacility placements for the two or more facilities, a set of welltrajectories for one or more wells, and the set of pipeline placementsfor the one or more pipelines based on a second algorithm.
 18. Thenon-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the secondalgorithm comprises a particle swarm optimization algorithm.
 19. Thenon-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, comprisingdetermining, independent of the simultaneous determining, a set of wellplacements for one or more wells via a third algorithm.
 20. Thenon-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, comprisingtransforming a map acquired via the topological data to a cost graphbased on the cost data.